Ramos Oil Recyclers, Inc v. AWIM, Inc. et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/15/09 ORDERING that 78 pltf's motion to disqualify dfts' expert witness Charles Corcoran is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 AWIM, INC., JULIE C. NELSON, 15 Defendants. 16 AWIM, INC., JULIE C. NELSON, 17 Counter-Claimants, 18 v. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On February 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify Defendants' expert witness Charles Corcoran, arguing in essence that Corcoran, who is a state employee, is precluded from giving expert testimony by California Government Code 19990. This section RAMOS OIL RECYCLERS, INC. dba RAMOS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Counter-Defendant. RAMOS OIL RECYCLERS, INC. dba RAMOS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2:07-cv-00448-GEB-DAD ORDER provides "[a] state . . . employee shall not engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise which is clearly inconsistent, incompatible, 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in conflict with, or inimical to his or her duties as a state . . . employee." However, this section also provides "[e]ach appointing power shall determine . . . those activities which, for employees under its jurisdiction, are inconsistent, incompatible or in conflict with their duties as state . . . employees." "Appointing power" is defined under California Government Code 18524 as "a person or group having authority to make appointments to positions in the State civil service." In light of the appointing power's authority to determine which activities violate 19990, Plaintiff has not shown why its motion on this ground is appropriate for decision by this Court. Further, Plaintiff argues Corcoran should be disqualified because Plaintiff anticipates that the testimony Corcoran will give would constitute inadmissible legal conclusions. However, the question whether an attorney seeks to have an expert "improperly [give a] legal conclusion[]" can be decided "during trial" in response to an objection. Lost Arrow Corp. v. Dedola Intern., Inc., No. CV 03-05797, 2005 WL 6124199, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2005). Therefore, the motion is denied. Dated: April 15, 2009 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?