Full opinion text
ORDER ROBERT W. PRATT, District Judge. Before the Court are two Motions for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, Bristol, Inc. d/b/a Emerson Process Management and/or d/b/a Remote Automated Solutions, 'Inc. (“Emerson”), Irene Bielen (“Bielen”), and Craig Rossman (“Rossman”) (collectively “Defendants”). Also before the Court is a Motion to Amend or Substitute Response (“Motion to Amend”), filed by Lana Anderson (“Plaintiff’), as Administrator of the Estate of Norman Anderson. Clerk’s No. 67. Defendants’ first Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MSJ I”), filed July 30, 2012, asserts that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs wrongful death claim (Count VII of the Amended Complaint). Clerk’s No. 36. Plaintiff resisted the motion on September 17, 2012. Clerk’s No. 39. Defendants replied on October 1, 2012. Clerk’s No. 42. Defendants’ Second Motion -for Partial Summary Judgment (“MSJ II”), filed December 14, 2012, requests judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with emotional distress claims (Counts I, II, and IV of the Amended Complaint). Clerk’s No. 47. Plaintiff resisted the motion on January 28, 20.13. Clerk’s No. 59. Defendants replied on February 8, 2013. Clerk’s No. 66. On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Amend, requesting leave to file amended or substituted responses to Defendants’ statement of material facts in support of Defendants’ MSJ II. Clerk’s No. 67. Defendants responded on March 5, 2013. Clerk’s No. 68. Plaintiff replied on March 15, 2013. Clerk’s No. 73. The matters are fully submitted. . I. PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE .HER .RESPONSE According to the Court’s Local Rules, a party resisting a motion for summary judgment must support its claims “by references to the specific pages, paragraphs or parts of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, exhibits, and affidavits that support the resisting party’s- refusal to admit the statement, with citations to the appendix containing that part of the record.” LR 56(b). “The failure to respond, without appropriate citations to the appendix, to an individual statement of material fact constitutes an admission of fact.” Id. In responding to Defendants’ MSJ II, Plaintiff failed to support numerous denials of Defendants’ asserted facts with citations to the record, thereby violating LR 56(b). See PL’s Resp. to Material Facts in Supp. of MSJ II (Clerk’s No. 59-1). Defendants, accordingly, requested that the Court deem all unsupported denials as admissions pursuant to LR 56(b). See Defs.’ Br. In Reply to Pl.’s Resistance to- Defs.’ MSJ II (“Defs.’ Reply Br. II”) (Clerk’s No. 66) at 1. Plaintiff thereafter filed the present Motion to Amend. In her Motion to Amend, Plaintiff-fails to provide any reason for not complying with LR 56(b) in the first instance. Instead, she claims to have filed her Motion to Amend due to “a brand new argument” raised by Defendants, i.e., that Defendants, “[f]or the very first time ... attack[ed] Plaintiff[’s] response to material facts.” See Mot. to Amend ¶2. Plaintiff goes on to state that the Court should allow the amendment because “(A) No prejudice would result!; and] (B) Plaintiffs Amended Response and Amended Appendix, at the least, will result in a fuller and more robust record for the Court to consider when deciding -the question of summary dismissal. -The factual issues between the parties will be clearer and more - precise.” Id. ¶ 7. • Defendants respond that the Court should deny Plaintiffs motion because Plaintiff had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to respond to Defendants’ facts and refused to take it. See Defs.’ Resistance to Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 2-3. Further, they claim that such an amendment would be futile and prejudicial. See id. at 3-11. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs “amendments” do not properly respond to Defendants’ statement of facts; rather, the amendments rehash legal arguments that have already been asserted in different documents. See id. at 4-10. In other words, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs amended responses still do not comply with LR 56(b). See id. The Southern District of Iowa’s Local Rule 56(b) is in place “to prevent a district court from engaging in the proverbial search for a needle in the haystack.” Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Illinois Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir.2003) (hereinafter “Nw. Bank II ”). Further, in the interests of efficiency, LR 56(b) cuts down on the time it takes the court “to investigate the record in search of an unidentified genuine issue of material fact.” Libel v. Adventure Lands of Am., Inc., 482 F.3d 1028, 1031-32 (8th Cir.2007). Although local rules can help “streamline the resolution of summary judgment motions,” Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.1994); the Court should allow amendments “when justice so requires,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Indeed, when determining the proper course of action following a motion to amend, the Court should generally choose the option that “encourage[s the] proper presentation of the record.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 advisory committee’s notes (2010). While the Court finds Plaintiffs reasons for not complying with LR 56(b) in the first instance uncompelling, it agrees with Plaintiff that such an amendment would provide a fuller and clearer record. The Court recognizes that justice requires the most complete record possible when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. As this Court has stated previously: Justice is not served by taking a heavy-handed approach to violations of local procedural rules. Non-compliance by counsel slows the judicial process and is certainly frustrating to both opposing counsel and to the Court. Imposing Draconian sanctions for isolated rule violations, however, does far more- than simply punish[ ] the attorneys. Rather; such an approach destroys the vital right of the, most likely, innocent client to have her day in Court simply because her attorney mistakenly violates a local procedural rule. This Court will not be party to such an egregious offense of anyone’s right to due'process. Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Illinois Nat’l Bank, 221 F.Supp.2d 1000, 1004 (S.D.Iowa 2002) (hereinafter “Nw. Bank I”), rev’d in part on other grounds, 354 F.3d 721 (8th Cir.2003). For these reasons, the Court will consider Plaintiffs amended filings in ruling on Defendants’ motions. As Defendants accurately point out, however, parts of Plaintiffs Amended Response are improper responses to Defendants’ statement of facts. Instead of listing concise and clear responses with appropriate citations to the record or appendix, Plaintiff frequently rehashes legal arguments covered in previous pleadings. See, e.g., Pl.’s Am. Resp. at 15-25 (responding to Defendants’ material facts and rehashing legal arguments already made in resisting Defendants’ MSJ II). Thus, to the extent the Amended Response asserts legal arguments, it will be ignored. Rather, the Court will use Plaintiffs Amended Response and Amended Appendix for the sole purpose of apprising itself of the additional factual information contained therein. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Anderson’s First Years at Emerson The decedent, Norman Anderson (“Anderson”) began working for the Marshalltown, Iowa office, of Fisher Controls (“Fisher”), a. wholly owned subsidiary of Emerson in September of 1999. Defs.’ Material Facts in Supp. of MSJ II (“Defs.’ Facts II”) (Clerk’s .No. 48-1) . ¶ 1. Anderson’s signed application stated: I understand and agree that my employment is at will and for no definite period and may, regardless of the period of payment of wages or salary, be terminated at any time for any reason without previous notice. I further understand that ... no employee handbook or policy may be construed to the' contrary or interpreted as a contract or guarantee of employment. Defs.’ App. in Supp. of MSJ II (Clérk’s No. 48-2) (“Defs.’ App. II”) at 2. However, just above this statement and the signature box, the following language appears: “THIS APPLICATION REMAINS ACTIVE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THREE MONTHS.” Id. Anderson worked for Emerson under the name of Fisher Controls until 2006, when Emerson obtained Bristol, Inc. Defs.’ Facts II ¶ 2. After some additional mergers and changes within the parent company, Anderson’s employer nominally became Remote Automation Solutions, but Emerson was still the parent-company employer. Id. At the time of his termination, Anderson had been employed by Emerson for a little less than ten years. ■ Am. Compl. (Clerk’s No. 6) ¶ 12. Between 1999 and 2008, Anderson received a number of promotions and raises. Id. ¶ 20. Most recently, in August of 2008, Anderson received a 10% raise from Emerson and a promotion to “controller.” Id. ¶¶ 20, 21-22. B. Anderson’s First Hospitalization - for Alcohol and His “Last Chance” Agreement Anderson’s life while working at Emerson was not without problems. Plaintiff claims that Anderson had “severe mental health impairments,” and specifically, that he suffered from alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, personality disorders, and chronic insomnia while he worked for Emerson. Defs.’ Statement of Facts in Supp. of MSJ. I (“Defs.’ Facts I”) (Clerk’s No. 36-2) ¶ 2. At the end of February 2009, Anderson’s alcoholism came to. the forefront, and he had to take a leave of absence. due to his alcoholic tendencies. App. to Pl.’s Resistance to Defs.’ MSJ II (“Pl.’s App. II”) (Clerk’s No. 59-2) at 10. Anderson entered the hospital on February 26, 2009 for alcohol withdrawal, and missed a substantial amount of work while he was receiving therapy. Id. at 11. Additionally, Anderson was having financial troubles, and the bank had recently foreclosed on his house. See Pl.’s Am.App. to Defs.’ MSJ II (“PL’s Am.App.”) (Clerk’s No. 67-3) at 126 (indicating the Anderson family moved on February 28 to a new house and they soon after declared bankruptcy), 129 (indicating the family moved from a foreclosed home); Defs.’ App. in Supp. of MSJ I (“Defs.’ App. I”) (Clerk’s No. 36-1) at 26 (autopsy report explaining that Anderson experienced a “recent foreclosure”). Anderson finally returned to work for half days on March 30, 2009. PL’s Am.App. at 26. During his time at the hospital, Anderson applied for and received salary continuation pursuant to Emerson’s Sick Leave Policy. See id. at-27. As a result of Anderson’s hospitalization and alcoholism, he entered into a “last chance” agreement with Emerson. Defs.’ App. II at 3-5. The agreement consisted of three pages and twelve numbered paragraphs detailing new rules and the steps that Anderson would have to take if he wanted to remain employed at Emerson. Id. Notably, paragraph 10 of the agreement referred' to Anderson’s at-will employment status, specifically stating: “I also understand that my entering into this agreement, does not, and is not intended to, alter my at-will employment status with the Company.” Id: at 4. Anderson signed the agreement on April 20, 2009, and Bielen approved it on May 18. Id. at 5. C. Anderson’s Mother’s Death and Anderson’s Work Situation Surrounding the Death Nothing of particular relevance to this case occurred between April 20 and July 13, 2009. However, on Monday, July 13, 2009, Anderson emailed Rossman to inform him that Anderson’s mother was close to death and that it likely would “only be a matter of days” until she passed away. PL’s AmApp. at 85. Rossman responded a little over an hour later and requested that Anderson “keep [him] updated, so that the team and [Rossman could] assist [Anderson] as best as possible.” Id. Anderson then took Tuesday afternoon off and told Rossman that he would, probably be absent on Wednesday as well, but that he would “check email nightly, and keep [Rossman] up to date.” Id. On Wednesday morning at 7:30 AM, Rossman requested that Anderson provide some additional financial information to the company. Id. at 92. Anderson responded fourteen hours later that he would “work on this in the morning,” adding that he would likely be absent from work on Thursday. Id. On Thursday, July 16, Rossman emailed additional questions to Anderson, and Anderson responded within a few hours. Id. at 86-87. Later in the afternoon on July 16, Anderson’s mother passed away. Id. at 95. On Friday morning, July 17, Anderson set up an “Out of Office AutoReply: My Mother” email, stating that he would be out of the office with “limited access' to email,” but “w[ould] respond as soon as possible.” Id. at 94. ‘ Additionally, on the morning of July 17, Anderson informed Rossman that his mother had passed away and the funeral would likely take place on Tuesday, July 21. Id. at 95. Rossman offered his condolences and told Anderson to “keep [him] updated on the requirements for [Anderson’s] time away from the office to be with [his] family.” Id. Anderson then took three days of bereavement leave and was absent from work from Monday, July 20 until Wednesday, July 22, 2009. Defs.’ Facts II ¶ 15. Despite knowing Anderson was out of the office for bereavement leave, Rossman sent two emails on July 20 to Anderson’s work email, requesting additional financial information and calculations. See PL’s Am.App. at 96-97.- Rossman also inquired of Anderson’s assistant what his schedule might be for the week. Id. at 98-99. Further, Rossman emailed Bielen on July 21 to inquire about Anderson’s vacation time. Id. at 100. At no point between July 20 and July 22 did Anderson communicate with Rossman. Defs.’ Facts II ¶ 16. On Thursday, July 23, Anderson contacted Rossman and indicated he would be working from home. Id. ¶ 18. The month-end financial closing date was Friday, July 24, and on July 23, Rossman emailed Anderson asking for specific financial information and reminding Anderson to update certain documents. Pl.’s Am. App. at 101-02. Anderson replied with some information later that evening. Id. at 103. The following day, Friday, July 24, Anderson informed the company (specifically Rossman) that he had a flat tire and would not be in the office. Defs.’ Facts II ¶ 19. Rossman sent two emails the same morning requesting information from Anderson. PL’s Am.App. at 104, 106. Anderson responded with answers to both questions. Id. at 106. Rossman sent another email that morning asking Anderson to call his cell phone. Id. at 105. The record is unclear whether Anderson made this call or not. See PL’s, Am. Statement of Facts in Resp. to Defs.’ MSJ II (“PL’s Am. Facts”) (Clerk’s No. 67-2) at 45 (explaining that “Anderson may well have returned the call” and that “[t]here [was] no further email discussion”). In the afternoon, Rossman sent additional emails requesting information from Anderson, but there was no response to these requests. PL’s Am.App. at 108-09; see Pi’s Am. Facts at 45 (“A third email question seemed to go unanswered.”). Finally, at 6:51 PM on Friday, July 24, Rossman sent Anderson a list of things that needed to be done by Monday morning. PL’s Am.App. at 111. He specifically told Anderson that he was “out of time to wait” and that “[i]f there is an issue that I need to be made aware of, please call me. Otherwise I will expect to see this data by 8[AM] CDT on Monday.” Id. Rossman sent a follow-up email a little less than an hour later reminding Anderson of another fact to keep in mind when preparing the data. Id. at 112. Rossman did not receive any phone calls or any information from Anderson over the weekend or on Monday morning. Defs.’ Facts II ¶ 21. D. Anderson’s Suicide Attempt, , Resulting Hospitalization, and Termination On the evening of Friday, July 24 (the last day of the week of his mother’s death), Anderson returned home and began to drink. Pl.’s Am.App. at 130 (Pl.’s Dep. at 159). He continued drinking throughout the weekend — during the day on Saturday, July 25 and Sunday, July 26. Id. (Pl.’s Dep. at 159-60). Late Sunday night- or early Monday morning, Anderson told his wife, “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have done it____I shouldn’t have taken — I shouldn’t have taken all of them.” Id. (PL’s Dep. at 161). Plaintiff rushed to the bedroom and found her husband’s empty pill - bottle; Anderson had taken almost an entire bottle of Trazodone. Id. at 130-31 (Pl.’s Dep. 161-62). Plaintiff rushed her husband to the hospital, and he was admitted during the early hours of Monday, July 27. Id. at 131 (Pl.’s Dep. at 164).' Plaintiff then called one of Anderson’s co-workers, Rhonda Spence, and explained the entire situation. Id. (PL’s Dep. at 165). Plaintiff asked Ms. Spence to inform Vice President of Technology Rick Vanderah (‘Vanderah”) of the events and circumstances of the suicide attempt. Id. On July 27, Vanderah heard about the hospitalization from a “family friend” of the Andersons and informed Rossman that Anderson was in the hospital. PL’s App. II at 25. A few days later, on July 30, 2009, Anderson was involuntarily committed and moved to Waterloo. See Pl.’s App. to Resistance to Mot. to Dismiss (Clerk’s No. 14-2). Anderson remained involuntarily committed until August 3. Pl.’s, Am.App. at 29. Plaintiff claims that from the time of his admission to the emergency room until his discharge from the psychiatric ward, Anderson did not have access to a telephone. ' See Br. in Supp. of PL’s Resistance to Defs.’ MSJ- II (“PL’s Resistance II”) (Clerk’s No. 59-3) at 13 ; Pl.’s Am. App. at 29. While Anderson was out of the office, work continued' at Emerson. On the first day of Anderson’s unexpected absence, July 27, Rossman began inquiring about Anderson’s status. See Pl.’s App. at 21-24. Rossman sent an email to Anderson at 11:32 ÁM simply asking “Are you in the office today?” Id. at 114. After receiving no reply,' Rossman made multiple other attempts to contact Anderson on his office phone, home phone, and mobile phone. Defs.’ Facts II ¶23. Neither Anderson nor a family member responded to Ross-man’s calls. Id. Although Rossman did not know of Anderson’s whereabouts from a member of the Anderson family, Vanderah claims to have called Rossman on July 27 and informed him that he had heard that Anderson was in the hospital and would likely be gone for two weeks. See PL’s App. IÍ at 25. As a result of Anderson’s absence, Rossman had to make arrangements to fly an' employee from Connecticut to Marshalltown to obtain the financial information needed for the month-end ’ closing. Defs.’ Facts II ¶ 24. Additionally, on Monday, July 27, Ross-man contacted Bielen regarding Anderson’s employment status with the company. See Pl.’s Am.App. at 115-16; Pl.’s App. II at 23. By Tuesday morning, July 28, Bielen knew that Anderson was in the hospital as well. Pl.’s App. II at 24. After talking the situation over with one another, Bielen and Rossman went to an Emerson attorney to seek guidance. Defs.’ Facts II ¶ 26. . After discussing Anderson’s situation .with the attorney, Bielen and Rossman, with the full authority of Emerson, decided to terminate Anderson’s employment. Id. Bielen sent a termination letter to Anderson’s last known address on Wednesday,. July 30, 2009. Id. ¶ 27. The letter . cited Anderson’s failure to attend work since Friday, July 24 and his failure toi notify his employer about his absence or whereabouts. Id. Anderson, however, never received this letter because it was sent to an old address. See Pl.’s App. II at 26. On the morning of Tuesday, August 4, Plaintiff stopped by Emerson to drop off a document regarding Anderson’s hospitalization, and Yanderah forwarded this document to Bielen. Pl.’s App. II at 28-29. The document, dated August 3, simply stated that Anderson had been hospitalized since 7-24-09; it did not, however, contain a return-to-work date.. Id. at 28 (document from McFarland Clinic stating that Anderson had been hospitalized and “May not return to work until reevaluated”). When Anderson was released from the hospital on August 3, he called Vanderah, who informed Anderson that he needed to speak with Rossman or Bielen. Pl.’s Am.App. at 129 (PL’s Dep. at 174). Anderson called Bielen around 3:00 that afternoon. PL’s App. II at 29. During that conversation, Bielen explained that Emerson had terminated Anderson’s employment due to no-call/no-show. Id. Bielen also claimed that Emerson had “no idea what was going on” during the time Anderson was out of the office, and that “Rick [Yanderah] did not get [the] message” from Anderson’s wife. Id: Anderson then begged for his job back, told Bielen that she did not understand the situation, and stated that he had a family and needed his job to take care of that family. Pl.’s Am.App. at 129 (Pl.’s Dep. at 176). Anderson.was crying during this phone call. Id. Anderson informed Bielen that he would be back at work that Thursday. Pl.’s App. II at 29. Bielen responded that Anderson’s actions were unacceptable and although “[she was not] sure if it will change anything,” Anderson could call Rossman. Id. During this conversation, Bielen did not use confrontational, harsh or inappropriate language. Defs.’ Facts II ¶34. She acted professionally and discussed the situation calmly. Id. Anderson said he would call Rossman, but never did. PL’s App. II at 29. The following day, August 5, Bielen obtained Anderson’s updated address and sent a copy of the termination letter. See id. at 25-26. E. Emerson’s Policies and Procedures: Sick Leave Policy, Employee Handbook, and At-Will Policy Defendants claim that during his time at Emerson, Anderson was subject to a number of different policies and procedures contained in various documents on an intranet site as well as in employee handbooks and other directives in the office. See Pl.’s Am.App. at 4. Four of these policies and portions of those policies are relevant to this case: Emerson’s Sick Leave Policy, Emerson’s Absences & Attendance Policy, a disclaimer contained in the employee handbook, and Emerson’s Employment-at-Will Policy. The Defendants also point out two more documents that may play a role in the case— Anderson’s employment application and Anderson’s “Last Chance” agreement, both referenced supra. Emerson’s Sick Leave Policy sets out the procedure regarding salary continuance for “eligible employees for periods of absence resulting from the employee’s sickness or injury.” PL’s Am.App. at 1. The policy provides, in pertinent part: Ih order to bé eligible for salary continuance, each employee absent due to illness or injury in excess of three (3) days is required to submit a signed doctor’s certificate to the Human Resources Department. This certificate must show the first day of absence, the nature of the illness and the return to work date. No payment will be made without a properly ■ executed doctor’s certificate .... Upon receiving a return to work release, employees will be reinstated to the same or equivalent position with the same pay, benefits and terms and conditions of employment provided that [sic] are able to perform the duties of the occupation without restriction or where reasonable accommodation can be made to provide for continued employment.... Excessive absenteeism, even if caused by injury or illness [sic ] may be grounds for termination if it interferes significantly with or causes any undue hardship upon the performance 'of duties. Id. at 1-2. The Sick Leave Policy lists as a “Related Procedure,” PERS 11, which corresponds to the Absences & Attendance Policy and Procedure. Id. at 1. The Absences & Attendance Policy and Procedure explains that Emerson “[d]oes not wish to penalize an individual for excusable absences or lateness and will only do so-when such absences or lateness become unfair, unreasonable or excessive.” Id. at 6. In the event of an absence, the document requires the employee to “notify [his or her] Supervisor or the Personnel Department promptly.” Id. at 7. It further states that absences are considered “excessive” when the amount reaches “more than five days per year.” Id. In addition to other documents and policies, Emerson generally distributes an employee handbook to all employees. See Defs.’ App. II at 45 (Bielen Aff. ¶ 9). After receiving this handbook, employees are required to sign a sheet accompanying the book stating that they received it. PL’s App. II at 4. The January 2009 handbook contained two disclaimers: Employment-at-Will Disclaimer We are an at-will employer and operate under the provision that employees have the right to resign their position at any time, with or without notice, and with or without cause. We, the employer, have similar rights to terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without notice, and with or without cause[.] Handbook Disclaimer This Employee handbook is provided' as a guide and is not considered a contract. The contents of this Handbook are presented as a matter of information only. RAS [Emerson] reserves the right to make changes to policies, procedures, and other statements made in this employee handbook. Business conditions, Federal and State Law, and organizational needs are constantly in flux and may require that portions of the handbook be re-written. This is necessary to successfully provide the appropriate guidance and to obtain the goals of the organization. You are encouraged to ask for and receive more information about any subject contained in this Handbook. Def.’s App. II at 33. Despite the general practice of distributing the handbook to all employees, there is no evidence in the record that Anderson received the handbook. Finally, Emerson had an Employment-at-Will Policy in place. Id. at 6. In pertinent part, the policy reads: In accepting or continuing employment with Remote Automation Solutions [Emerson], employees agree that their relationship with Remote Automation Solutions is, and always has been, strictly voluntary and at-will on both sides. Nothing in the Employee Handbook or in any other document issued by Remote Automation Solutions will alter this at-will relationship except legally ratified union contracts or employment agreements signed by both the employee and the President of Remote Automation Solutions .... To ensure that all employees have been fully advised of our at-will relationship, they will be required to sign a receipt and acknowledgment for the Employment at will statement and the Employee Handbook on their first day of hire. Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Plaintiff claims that Anderson never received the document. See Pl.’s Am. Facts at 29-30. F. Anderson’s Death and Autopsy ;■ After Anderson’s termination, he became depressed and lethargic. Pl.’s Am. App. at 132 (Pl.’s Dep. at 183). He did little more than lay in bed or on the couch and would not shower.’ Id. Then, on August 11, 2009, as Anderson was getting ready to leave his house to attend a substance abuse meeting, he told his wife, “without a job to take care of [my] family, there [is] no reason for [me] to be here anymore.” Id. (Pl.’s Dep. at 184). Right before he walked out the door, he told his wife, “Remember I have always loved you.” Id. (Pl.’s Dep. at 185). Later that same night, a vehicle was reported in a bean field at approximately 11:30, PM. Defs.’ App. I at 26. A few hours later,, in the early morning hours of August 12, a local resident noticed smoke in a creek bed. Id. at 31. There was an irregular path from the road through the field to the creek embankment. Id. The embankment was not visible from the road. Id. Anderson’s heavily charred body was found in the car. Id. at 27. After performing an autopsy, the medical examiner concluded that Anderson had a significant amount of alcohol in his system as well as a toxic level of paroxetine^ a drug used to treat depression and other mental illnesses. See id. at 32; PL’s Resistance to Defs.) .MS J I (Clerk’s No. 39) at 8. Due to other evidence, such as the fact that there was an irregular path to the creek and the embankment was not visible from the roadway, the medical examiner stated her opinion that Anderson’s death was an accident. See Defs.’ App. I at 32. She did not, however, completely exclude an overdose of paroxetine as a possible cause of death. Id. Anderson’s certificate of death reiterated the medical examiner’s findings and listed the manner of death as an accident. Id. at 47. G. Procedural Background Plaintiff originally filed a complaint on July 25, 2011 in the Iowa District Court in and for Marshall County against Defendants Emerson, Bielen, and Rossman. On September 8, 2011, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal (Clerk’s No. 1) at 2. A week later, on September 15, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that the Plaintiff incorrectly filed the case and, thus, lacked standing. Clerk’s No. 2. Additionally, Defendants moved to dismiss certain counts due to inadequate pleadings. Shortly thereafter, on October 11, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint curing the defect in her original pleading, and asserting three additional federal claims. See Am. Compl. The Court then dismissed Defendants’ original Motion to Dismiss as moot. Clerk’s No. 8. The Amended Complaint asserts the following ten claims: Count I, breach of written contract (against Defendant Emerson); Count II, intentional interference with written contract, or alternatively, intentional interference with at-will employment (against Defendants Bielen and Rossman); Count III, fraud; Count IV, intentional infliction of emotional distress; Count V, violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”); Count VI, wrongful discharge; Count VII, wrongful death; Count VIII, unlawful interference, restraint, or denial of FMLA rights; Count IX, retaliation for exercising FMLA rights; and Count X, disability discrimination in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See generally id. On October 21, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss PL’s Am. Compl. (Clerk’s No. 9). Although it did not' fully grant Defendants’ motion, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs claims as to Counts II, fraud, and VI, wrongful discharge. Clerk’s No. 22. Thus, following the Court’s- order, only eight causes of action remain. The present Motions for Partial Summary Judgment submit that judgment- as a matter of law must be granted in Defendants’ favor on four of those claims — Count I, breach of written contract; Count II, intentional interference with written contract; Count IV, intentional infliction of emotional distress; and Count VII, wrongful death. Clerk’s Nos. 36, 48. III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The term “summary judgment” is something of a misnomer. See D. Brock Horn-by, Summary Judgment Without Illusions, 13 Green Bag 2d 273 (Spring 2010). It “suggests a judicial process that is simple, abbreviated, and inexpensive,” while in reality, the process is complicated, time-consuming, and expensive. Id. at 273, 281. The complexity of the process, however, reflects the “complexity of law and life.” Id. at 281. “Since the constitutional right to jury trial is at stake,” judges must engage in a “paper-intensive and often tedious” process to “assiduously avoid deciding disputed facts or inferences” in a quest to determine whether a record contains genuine factual disputes that necessitate a trial. Id. at 281-82. Despite the seeming inaptness of the name and the desire for some in the plaintiffs’ bar to be rid of it, the summary judgment process is well-accepted and appears “here to stay.” Id. at 281. Indeed, “judges are duty-bound to resolve legal disputes, no matter how close the call.” Id. at 287. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that “[a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought.” “[Sjummary judgment is an extreme remedy, and one which is not to be granted unless the movant has established his right to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy and that the other party is not entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances.” Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chem. Interchange Co., 541 F.2d 207, 209 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Windsor v. Bethesda Gen. Hosp., 523 F.2d 891, 893 n. 5 (8th Cir.1975)). The purpose of summary judgment is not “to cut litigants off from their right of trial by jury if they really have issues to try.” Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 467, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962) (quoting Sartor v. Ark. Natural Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627, 64 S.Ct. 724, 88 L.Ed. 967 (1944)). Rather, it is designed to avoid “useless, expensive artd time-consuming trials where there is actually no genuine, factual issue remaining to be tried.” Anderson v. Viking Pump Div., Houdaille Indus., Inc., 545 F.2d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Lyons v. Bd. of Educ., 523 F.2d 340, 347 (8th Cir.1975)). Summary judgment, can be entered against a party if that party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case, and on which.that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment upon motion after there has been adequate time for discovery. Summary judgment is appropriately granted when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and 'giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Harlston v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 37 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir.1994). The Court does not weigh the evidence, nor does it make credibility determinations. The Court only determines whether there are any disputed issues and, if so, whether those issues are both genuine and material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Wilson v. Myers, 823 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir.1987) (“Summary judgment is not designed to weed out dubious claims, but to eliminate those claims with no basis in material fact.”) (citing Weight Watchers of Quebec, Ltd. v. Weight Watchers Int’l, Inc., 398 F.Supp. 1047, 1055 (E.D.N.Y.1975)). In a summary judgment motion, the moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact based on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits, if any. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. If the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmoving party must then go beyond' its original pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue of material fact that needs to be resolved by a trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). This additional showing can be by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or the admissions on file. Id.; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat a motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there' be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505. An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is sufficient to persuade a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. See id. at 248. “As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material.... Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. Courts do not treat summary judgment as if it were a paper trial. Therefore, a “district court’s role in deciding the motion, is not to sift through the evidence, pondering the nuances and inconsistencies, and' decide whom to believe.” Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir.1994). In a motion for summary judgment, the Court’s job is only to decide, based on the evidentiary record that accompanies the moving and resistance filings of the parties, whether there really is any material dispute of fact that still requires a trial. See id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505 and 10 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §. 2712 (3d ed.1998)). IV. LAW AND ANALYSIS Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment in an attempt to dismiss four of Plaintiffs eight remaining claims. Defendants’ MSJ I solely asks the Court to grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim for wrongful death (Count VII). Defendants’ MSJ II requests that the Court grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract (Count I), intentional interference with written contract (Count II), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV). Defendants’ MSJ II also raises additional arguments as to why summary judgment on Plaintiffs wrongful death claim (Count VII) is warranted. The Court will consider each motion separately. Because the Court is hearing the case due to diversity jurisdiction, see Notice of Removal, it must apply the substantive laws of the forum state — in this case, Iowa. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (“Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law. to be applied in any case is the law' of the State.”). A. Defendants’ MSJ I In MSJ I, Defendants ask the Court- to grant judgment as a matter of law in their favor on Plaintiffs wrongful death claim (Count VII). Defendants claim that Plaintiff has failed to point to any facts that demonstrate either: (1) that Anderson committed suicide; or (2) that, assuming Anderson’s death was a suicide, Defendants caused the suicide. Defs.’ Br. in Supp. of MSJ I (“Defs’ Br. I”) (Clerk’s No. 36-1) at 7-10. Additionally, Defendants assert that. Plaintiff should be prohibited from using any expert testimony' because she faded to comply with the expert disclosure requirements contained in the recently amended version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C). Id. at 10-11. More specifically, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to provide “a summary of facts and opinions to which [each non-retained expert] witness is expected to testify” as required by the Rule. Id. at 10 (quoting-Fed.R.CiviP. 26(a)(2)(C)). As a result of Plaintiffs inadequate disclosure, Defendants implicitly ask the Court to prohibit all expert witnesses from testifying and .to prohibit Plaintiff from relying on expert .testimony. See id. at 10-11. Defendants then argue that without expert testimony, Plaintiff will not be able to meet her burden of demonstrating either element of wrongful death — that Anderson committed suicide, or that Defendants’ actions led to the .suicide. Plaintiff responds that her expert disclosures comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C), that the autopsy report raises a genuine issue of material fact as to the manner of death, and that the disputed circumstances surrounding Anderson’s death lead to a genuine issue of material fact as to causation. See PL’s Resistance to Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“PL’s Resistance I”) (Clerk’s No. 39) §§ II.B, II.C, II.D. The Court will first discuss Defendants’ implicit motion to strike expert testimony based on Plaintiffs inadequate 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures. Then, it will consider the two fighting issues of the wrongful death claim — whether Anderson’s death was a suicide and whether Defendants were the cause of the suicide. Although the Court disagrees with Defendants’ proposed discovery sanction of prohibiting all expert testimony, it nevertheless agrees that Plaintiff has failed to identify sufficient evidence to overcome Defendants’ MSJ I. Based on a thorough review, of the present record, the Court, assuming the death was a suicide, finds that Plaintiff has failed to generate a genuine issue of material fact as to the causation aspect of the suicide. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ MSJ I and DISMISSES Count VII of Plaintiffs Complaint. ■ ■ 1. Defendants’ implicit motion to exclude expert testimony. To help resolve tensions and clarify when non-retained experts had to provide expert reports, the Advisory Committee to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recently amended the disclosure rules for non-retained experts. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C) advisory committee’s note. - Effective December 1, 2010, parties must not only identify non-retained witnesses, but also must disclose “the subject matter on which the [non-retained expert] witness,is expected to present ...; and a summary of the facts and opinions to which- the witness is expected to testify.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). Therefore, under the current rule, if a party fails to comply with the new requirements, a sanction may b.e appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). The Court then, must consider two questions: (1) Did the party comply with the rule? and (2) If not, what should be the appropriate sanction? a. Did Plaintiff comply with the disclosure requires under amended Rule 26(a)(2)(C) ? On its face, Rule 26(a)(2)(C) requires “a summary of the facts and opinions to which the [non-retained expert] witness is expected to testify.” Due to its relatively recent enactment, however, few courts have explained precisely what the rule demands. District courts have repeatedly held that a mere citation to records fails to satisfy the requirements of the new rule. See, e.g., Lopez v. Keeshan, No. 4:11CV3013, 2012 WL 2343415, at *4 (D.Neb. June 20, 2012) (holding -that the “names and the connection” of the éxperts, without more, was insufficient to comply with 26(a)(2)(C)); Ballinger v. Casey’s Gen. Store, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-1439, 2012 WL 1099823, at *4 (S.D.Ind. Mar. 29, 2012) (“[M]edical records alone do not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C).”); Kristensen ex rel. Kristensen v. Spotnitz, . No. 3:09-CV-00084, 2011 WL 5320686, at *2 (W.D.Va. June 3, 2011) (finding that the names of the witnesses along with an indication that “ ‘medical records’ ... which had been submitted ‘in previous discovery’ ” was insufficient to comply with the rule); Nicastle v. Adams Cty. Sheriff’s Office, No. 10-cv-00816, 2011 WL 1674954, at *1 (D.Colo. May 3, 2011) (holding that a citation to 963 pages of personnel files was not an appropriate “summary” as required by 26(a)(2)(C)); Crabbs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 4:09-cv-00519, 2011 WL 499141, at *1-3 (S.D.Iowa Feb. 4, 2011) (explaining that a “timely designation” that is “accompanied by [a] written functional capacity evaluation,- associated test results, physical exam notes, and history ... is sufficient to comply with [Fed R. Civ. P. 26](a)(2)(C),” but a mere reference to medical records should be considered an “absence of [a] Rule 26(a)(2)(C). summarfy]”). “A summary is defined ás a brief account that states the main points of a larger body of information.” Nicastle, 2011 WL 1674954, at *1; see also, Ballinger, 2012 WL 1099823 at *4 (explaining that “medical records go beyond a mere summary,” and that to allow medical records alone to be sufficient “would invite a party to dump a litany ofmedical records on the opposing party, contrary to the rule’s attempt to extract a. ‘summary’ ” (internal citations omitted)); Kristensen, 2011 WL 5320686 at *2 (“But whatever the precise meaning of the requirement, a ‘summary’ is ordinarily understood to be an ‘abstract, abridgement, or compendium.’” (quoting Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1179 (10th ed. 1993))). The Court finds the preceding cases’ reasoning persuasive, and holds that when a party merely states the name of the witness along with the witness’ connection to the ease, or where the party solely refers to medical or similar records that have already been produced, without providing a summary of the witness’ expected testimony, the party is not in full compliance with the disclosure requirements found in Rule 26(a)(2)(C). See, e.g., Lopez, 2012 WL 2343415 at *4; Ballinger, 2012 WL 1099823 at *4. Based upon this finding, Plaintiff has failed to adequately disclose any expert witnesses.- None of her disclosures contain a “summary of facts and opinions” as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Instead, the disclosures fall into two categories. First, for all non-treating physicians, Plaintiff merely states the witness’ occupation, connection with the case, and then states what type of expertise the witness “presumably’’, possesses. A typical non-treating-physician disclosure for Plaintiff is as follows: Boswell, Mark. Autopsy Technician, Mr. Boswell was an Autopsy Technician, as listed on “Report of Autopsy, of Norman Anderson,” Plaintiffs Potential Exhibit. Also, presumably, Mr. Boswell has knowledge about situations and scenes where a decedent is found, investigating situations and scenes where a decedent is found, and laws, regulations, and proper procedures governing situations where a decedent is found and investigating situations where a decedent is found, as well as performing autopsies, preparing reports of autopsies, and laws, regulations, and proper procedures governing performing autopsies and preparing reports of autopsies. Finally, Mr. Boswell presumably has all the education, training, experience, scientific and technical expertise, and other specialized knowledge one would expect an Autopsy Technician to possess. Pl.’s Resistance I at 18-19 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs disclosures of treating physicians are much shorter, and state only the name of the physician, the physician’s title, and then refer Defendants to previously produced medical records. For example, a typical treating-physician disclosure is as follows: “Demmel, James. Treating physician. See medical records produced.” Id. at 19. Out of Plaintiffs thirty expert disclosures, none contains an appropriate “summary of facts and opinions” that comply with either the letter or the spirit of Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Rather, they are the types of disclosures that other courts have rejected in’ Lopez, Ballinger, Kristensen, and Ni-castle. While not constrained by these decisions, this Court finds their reasoning persuasive, and thus concludes that Plaintiff has failed to adequately disclose experts pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C). b. What is the appropriate sanction for failing to disclose expert testimony pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C)? Upon finding that a Rule 26 disclosure was inadequate or there was a failure to disclose, courts are faced with a second, and in many ways, more important, question — how should the offending party be sanctioned? Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), a judge can pass down a number of potential punishments for failure to comply with a rule. If the failure to properly disclose was neither justified nor harmless, the penalty can include a complete prohibition of any information obtained through the expert witness on-any motion, at any hearing, or at trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). The choice of the sanction or remedy, however, lies within the wide discretion of the trial court. Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687, 692 (8th Cir.2008). Moreover, the text of the rule requires the trial court to consider whether “the failure was either substantially justified or ... harmless.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). To aid in the Court’s determination of whether the failure was substantially justified or harmless and to help decide upon an appropriate sanction or remedy, the Eighth Circuit has instructed trial courts to consider,-inter alia, the following four factors: “[ (1) ] the reason for noncompliance; [ (2) ] the surprise and prejudice to the opposing party; [ (3) ] the extent to which allowing the information or testimony would disrupt the order and efficiency of the trial, and [ (4) ] the importance of the information or testimony.” Wegener, 527 F.3d at 692 (citing Sellers v. Mineta, 350 F.3d 706, 711-12 (8th Cir.2003)). The court then balances these factors against the severity of the sanction to reach a fair result. See Lopez, 2012 WL 2343415 at *3. Although the trial court retains broad discretion in deciding on a particular sanction, that discretion “is not absolute,” Doe v. Young,. 664 F.3d 727 (8th Cir.2011), and “the district court’s discretion narrows as the severity of the-sanction or remedy it elects increases,” Wegener, 527 F.3d at 692. For example, where a sanction is “tantamount to a dismissal of [a party’s] claims,” the district court should consider lesser sanctions. Heartland Bank v. Heartland Home Fin., Inc., 335 F.3d 810, 817 (8th Cir.2003). Further, Defendants’ proposed sanction — complete exclusion of evidence — “is a harsh penalty and should be used sparingly.” Wegener, 527 F.3d at 692 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting ELCA Enters. v. Sisco Equip. Rental & Sales, 53 F.3d 186, 190 (8th Cir.1995)). - Keeping in mind the Eighth Circuit’s animosity toward exclusion of evidence or sanctions that will result in a de facto dismissal, the Court will now consider the various factors listed in Wegener. First, the Court will consider Plaintiffs reason for noncompliance with the rule. In other words, this factor asks if the party was substantially justified' in its delay. See Wegener, 527 F.3d at 693. At the outset, the- Court notes that Plaintiffs counsel conclusively states, without citing anything other than the plain text of Rule 26(a)(2)(C), that Plaintiffs disclosures are adequate and comply with the rule. However, as stated above, the Court disagrees that Plaintiffs disclosures satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Indeed, counsel’s misinterpretation of the rule’s requirements does not substantially justify Plaintiffs failure to comply. Thus, the Court will look to see whether a delay, or in this case, a failure, to provide the disclosures was substantially justified for reasons other than misinterpreting the rule. According to the original scheduling order, filed March 22, 2012, Plaintiff was to disclose all experts by May 4, 2012. See Clerk’s No. 26. On April 27, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to extend the deadlines, citing counsel’s other “pressing” responsibilities. Clerk’s No. 30. The Court. extended the deadline to June 15, 2012. Clerk’s No. 31. Almost two weeks after this deadline, on June 26, 2012, Plaintiff asked for a second extension. See Clerk’s No. 32. Again, the Court granted the request and reset the deadline for July 8. See Clerk’s No. 33. At 3:00 AM on July 9, Plaintiff filed her responses to Defendants’ interrogatories, including her designation of experts. Defs.’ Br. I at 5. Plaintiff offers no excuse outside of counsel’s other responsibilities and obligations, and the Court granted Plaintiffs two extensions. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failure to adequately disclose experts was not substantially justified. The Court now turns to the second factor in Wegener — the surprise and prejudice to the opposing party. Here, Defendants received the names of the treating-physician witnesses along with some minimal disclosures — such as the medical records previously disclosed. Surprise, however, is generally not a large concern in relation to treating physicians. See Lopez, 2012 WL 2343415 at *4 (“Defendant cannot legitimately claim that she is surprised ... since the Plaintiff provided at least a minimal disclosure by the court ordered expert deadline.... Defendant has all of Plaintiffs medical records in her possession and has undoubtedly been able to review those records ... [and] possesses the basis for any of the proposed opinions.”); Crabbs, 2011 WL 499141 at *2-3 (explaining the reasoning of “the report requirement [is] to give fair notice of opinion testimony and time for the opponent to prepare,” but nevertheless allowing expert testimony that was “limited to the subject matter of [the physicians’] treatment as disclosed in medical records”). While certainly Defendants have, in some way, been prejudiced by Plaintiffs failure to comply with the rule — for example, by the time and cost of preparing a lengthy motion for summary judgment based on excluding expert testimony — the prejudice that results from Plaintiffs inadequate disclosure with respect to treating physicians is minimal. Plaintiff responded to interrogatories on July 9, 2012, more than a month before Defendants’ expert deadline and over four months before the end of discovery, thus giving Defendants adequate time to prepare cross-examinations and rebuttal witnesses based on the physicians’ medical records. The other non-retained “expert” witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff present additional problems, however. While the calling of the witness at trial would not surprise Defendants, the testimony of the non-treating-physician experts would constitute a surprise. Unlike the treating physicians listed in Plaintiffs answer to Interrogatory 3, Defendants have no documents or other information from which to prepare cross-examination or rebuttal witnesses to combat the testimony or any way to predict what the testimony of these witnesses will be. Defendants cannot glean from the inadequate expert disclosures the opinions to which the non-retained experts are likely to testify. There are a few exceptions, insofar as some of the witnesses have produced pri- or documents. For the majority of these witnesses, however, any expert testimony would constitute surprise and would be highly prejudicial to Defendants. The Court must now consider “the extent to which allowing the information or testimony would disrupt the order and efficiency of the trial.” Wegener, 527 F.3d at 692. Trial has recently been rescheduled for June 3, 2013 — approximately two months away. While other deadlines have been pushed back throughout the duration of the case, the trial date was only recently extended from its original and long-standing date of April 15, 2013. See id. at 690, 693 (expressing concern about further delaying a trial after it had already been rescheduled four times and the start date pushed back almost a year). Given the close proximity of the trial, even after the date was extended, there is substantial concern that completely reopening discovery (which has been closed since November 19, 2012) to depose experts and find rebuttal witnesses would have a negative effect on the order and efficiency of the trial. Indeed, it may unduly prolong the ease. Finally, the Court must examine the importance of the expert testimony to the case. Although the Court is unsure what the medical reports say, Defendants repeatedly assert that expert testimony is paramount to Plaintiffs case. Simply put, without expert testimony, it is impossible for Plaintiffs claims to succeed. For the non-medical experts, however, the Court cannot know the extent- or importance of their expert testimony. Clearly, Plaintiff relies on many' of these witnesses to provide the factual background of the case, but for the most part, Plaintiff has failed to list what their opinions will be, has failed to list what facts they will testify to, and has failed to provide any explanation of the relevance of their expert testimony to the case. Indeed, in her resistances to Defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff does not rely on a single non-retained expert’s testimony; rather, she merely tells the Court experts exist and she will present experts at trial. Balancing these factors, the Court must now fashion an appropriate sanction or remedy for Plaintiffs failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Interestingly, none of the witnesses listed by Plaintiff in her response to the expert interrogatory differ from those listed on-the fact-witness interrogatory.' Additionally, with regard to the overlapping witnesses, the answers to both interrogatories are identical. After balancing all factors, and in light of Plaintiffs answers to Defendants’ interrogatories, the Court finds that the expert witnesses should not be completely prohibited frofri testifying; rather, their testimony must be limited. In similar situations, other courts have come to the same conclusion and have limited testimony to the information contained in the witnesses’ respective reports. See Lopez, 2012 WL 2343415 at (limit-1 ing the testimony of inadequately disclosed medical professionals to the “information disclosed within the Plaintiffs disclosed medical records” and allowing testimony of the “treating physician’s respective records and reports and any reasonable factual inferences that can be drawn therefrom”); Ballinger, 2012 WL 1099823 at *5 (“[The physician’s] testimony is limited to personal observations, diagnoses, and treatment contained in the medical records and formed in the course of treatment.”); Crabbs, 2011 WL 499141 at *3 (“[I]n the absence of Rule 26(a)(2)(C) summaries, the opinion testimony of [the] treating physicians ... will be limited to the subject matter of their treatment as disclosed in the medical records and to opinions formed in the course of the treatment provided by them.”). The Court finds the reasoning in these cases persuasive and will allow experts to testify with respect to already disclosed reports. This appears a proper way to avoid surprise and prejudice to the opposing parties. Accordingly, in the present case, the opinion testimony of all of the treating physicians, as well as the other non-medical witnesses who provided other reports will be limited (at least insofar as “expert” testimony is concerned) to the “records!,] reports[,] and any reasonable factual inferences that can be drawn therefrom.” See Lopez, 2012 WL 2343415 at *5. Allowing opinion testimony. outside of these strict limits or by any other witness would cause unfair surprise and undue prejudice to Defendants and would prolong the case by re-opening discovery with only a short period of time before-the scheduled start of trial. The failure to adequately disclose experts in this case was neither substantially justified nor harmless. Thus, excluding expert testimony as outlined in this Order is an appropriate sanction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). 2. Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim (Count VII). Iowa statutory law allows a party to bring an action to recover damages for wrongful death if the decedent, had he lived, would have been able to bring the same cause of action. See Troester v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 328 N.W.2d 308, 312 (Iowa 1982) (explaining that a claim for wrongful death in Iowa stems from “Iowa Code section 611.20, a survival statute, [that] keeps alive for the benefit of the decedent’s estate the cause of action which the deceased prior to his death could have brought had he survived the injury, with recovery enlarged to include the wrongful death”) (citing Egan v. Naylor, 208 N.W.2d 915, 917 (Iowa 1973)). Therefore, the elements of wrongful death are synonymous with the elements of the underlying tort, the only difference being that the “injury” of the underlying tort is the death of the decedent. In the present case, Plaintiff claims that “Defendants’ tortious acts ... resulted in a mental condition which, in turn, resulted in Anderson’s uncontrollable impulse to commit suicide, and/or which prevented Anderson from .realizing the true nature of the act of suicide.” Am. Compl. ¶ 121. Defendants do not, at this point, specifically argue about any of the alleged underlying “tortious acts”; rather, Defendants challenge the “injury” and “causation” aspects of Anderson’s death. See Defs.’ Br. I at 7-10. Thus, the Court will evaluate only whether Anderson suffered an “injury” that may be compensable and the causation aspect of Plaintiffs wrongful death claim, i.e., whether Defendants’ actions led to Anderson’s alleged suicide. a. Did Anderson commit suicide? Defendants first challenge whether the claimed injury — suicide or a mental defect so severe as to-,“prev