Smith v. National City Mortgage et al
Filing
84
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/17/12 ORDERING that Defendant's Request to Strike is DENIED; and Defendant's MOTION to preclude expert testimony 63 is GRANTED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WILLIAM A. SMITH,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:10-cv-0359-JAM-JFM
vs.
NAT’L CITY MORTGAGE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
On July 12, 2012, the court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to preclude
17
expert testimony. Michael Maloney appeared for plaintiff. Kimberly Paese appeared for
18
defendant. On review of the motion, following discussion of counsel and good cause appearing
19
therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
20
21
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2011, the Honorable John A. Mendez issued a scheduling order
22
setting April 13, 2012 as the deadline by which to make initial expert disclosures, and April 27,
23
2012 for supplemental expert disclosures. Doc. No. 49. On April 16, 2012, Judge Mendez
24
signed the parties’ stipulation extending the initial expert deadline to May 14, 2012 and the
25
supplemental disclosures deadline to May 28, 2012. Doc. No. 59. Discovery concluded on June
26
8, 2012, and trial is scheduled to commence on November 5, 2012.
1
1
On May 10, 2012, and in compliance with the stipulated expert discovery
2
deadlines, plaintiff served on defendant a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Expert
3
Witnesses” (“Plaintiff’s Disclosure Document”). This document listed three individuals as
4
experts – Doug Minor, David Pereira and Jessica Dutra – and provided only their names and
5
addresses.
6
Plaintiff also served a declaration of counsel entitled “Declaration of Michael D.
7
Maloney in support of Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Expert Witnesses” (“the Supporting
8
Declaration”). The Supporting Declaration also set forth three intended expert witnesses: Doug
9
Minor, David Pereira and Barry Cleverdon. Cleverdon, however, was not listed in Plaintiff’s
10
Disclosure Document. Jessica Dutra, who was listed in Plaintiff’s Disclosure Document, was
11
not listed in the Supporting Declaration. Also, the Supporting Declaration included the CV for
12
Pereira and Cleverdon as exhibits, but no documents for Doug Minor. Finally, plaintiff failed to
13
submit expert reports for any of the intended expert witnesses.
14
On May 24, 2012, defense counsel contacted plaintiff’s counsel to discuss
15
plaintiff’s failure to provide expert reports pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16
26(a)(2)(B). Counsel for plaintiff acknowledged his error and said the expert reports would be
17
forthcoming. Plaintiff submitted an expert report on June 21, 2012. Doc. No. 75.
18
19
20
21
DISCUSSION
A.
The Parties’ Positions
1.
Defendant
Defendant brings this motion on two grounds: plaintiff created confusion as to
22
which individuals he intends to call as experts and plaintiff failed to submit expert reports in
23
violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(b). Defendant asserts it has been
24
prejudiced because it has been unable to (a) determine the identity of the proffered experts with
25
any certainty; (b) ascertain the opinions the proffered will offer at trial or what they base the
26
same upon; (c) evaluate the need for rebuttal experts and/or seek and retain them (let alone do so
2
1
by the supplemental deadline); (d) depose the proffered experts (and/or do so before the close of
2
discovery); (e) prepare any dispositive motion by the deadline1; (f) prepare for trial; and/or (g)
3
evaluate early settlement potential. Defendant also cites to Judge Mendez’s scheduling order,
4
which provides that the “[f]ailure of a party to comply with the disclosure schedule as set forth
5
above in all likelihood will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial
6
absent a showing that the necessity for the witness could nto have been reasonably anticipated at
7
the time the disclosures were ordered and that the failure to make timely disclosure did not
8
prejudice any other party.” Doc. No. 46.
9
2.
Plaintiff
In the Joint Discovery Statement, plaintiff admits his error. He also withdraws
10
11
Barry Cleverdon and Jessica Dutra as experts, leaving David Pereira and Doug Minor. In an
12
Opposition filed after the Joint Discovery Statement was filed2, plaintiff’s counsel claims any
13
error regarding expert discovery is his and requests that his client not be punished for his error.
14
Counsel asserts that he is primarily a state court attorney, and his initial expert filings complied
15
with state rules of civil procedure, not the federal rules of civil procedure. Plaintiff also
16
withdraws Doug Minor as an expert, leaving only David Pereira as an expert. Finally, plaintiff
17
submits Pereira’s expert report with his Opposition.
18
Plaintiff argues against granting defendant’s motion on the grounds that: (a)
19
defendant will not be prejudiced because trial is four months from the date of the hearing on this
20
motion; (b) Pereira’s testimony is critical to plaintiff’s case; and (c) plaintiff has now provided
21
Pereira’s expert report.
22
23
24
1
The court notes that defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on July 11, 2012.
Doc. No. 79.
2
25
26
Defendant objects to any arguments raised in and documents attached to this
Opposition. Since a joint discovery statement had already been filed, defendant urges the court
to strike this Opposition as being in violation of Local Rule 251, which requires discovery
motions to be briefed by way of a joint discovery statement.
3
1
2
B.
Analysis
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), a party must disclose and provide reports for “any
3
person who may be used at trial to present” expert testimony. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4
37(c)(1) prescribes “[a] party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information
5
required by Rule 26(a) ... is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a
6
trial ... information not so disclosed.”
7
“Rule 37 (c)(1) gives teeth to [the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) disclosure] requirements by
8
forbidding the use at trial of any information required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is not
9
properly disclosed.” Yeti by Molly v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.
10
2001). “Two express exceptions ameliorate the harshness of Rule 37(c)(1): The information may
11
be introduced if the parties’ failure to disclose the required information is substantially justified
12
or harmless.” Id. “Implicit in Rule 37(c)(1) is that the burden is on the party facing sanctions to
13
prove harmlessness.” Id. at 1106-07.
14
Here, it is evident that plaintiff violated Rule 26(a)(2) by failing to include an
15
expert report with either Plaintiff’s Disclosure Document or the Supporting Declaration.
16
Counsel’s unfamiliarity with the federal rules of civil procedure does not qualify as substantial
17
justification to warrant an exception to Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Thus, the only available relief for
18
plaintiff is if his error is harmless. Plaintiff argues there is no harm because trial is four months
19
away and he has now provided Pereira’s report. However, the prejudice to defendant is
20
indisputable: the discovery deadline has passed, the date to file dispositive motions has passed,
21
defendant has been unable to depose plaintiff’s expert, and defendant has not had an opportunity
22
to evaluate the need for and/or retain rebuttal experts.
23
Furthermore, although plaintiff has now provided the expert report, it is over one
24
month late. See Quevedo v. Trans-Pac. Shipping, Inc., 143 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 1998)
25
(refusing to consider expert’s report because it was filed one-and-a-half months late and plaintiff
26
could have asked for an extension of time).
4
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Defendant’s request to strike is denied; and
3
2. Defendant’s motion to preclude expert testimony is granted.
4
DATED: July 17, 2012.
5
6
7
8
/014;smit0359.expert
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
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?