Hall et al v. City of Fairfield et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/19/11 DENYING 68 Motion to Supplement Expert Witness Disclosure. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Markus M. Hall, Monique G.
Rankin, Lindsey K. Sanders,

9
10
11

Plaintiffs,
v.

13

City of Fairfield, Nick
McDowell, Chris Grimm, Tom
Shackford, Zack Sandoval, Steve
Crane,

14

Defendants.
________________________________

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-0508-GEB-DAD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT EXPERT
WITNESS DISCLOSURE

15
16

Defendants move for an order “authoriz[ing] the disclosure of

17

a supplemental expert witness” in this case. (Mot. 2:4-5, ECF No. 68.)

18

Defendants seek in this motion to “amend[] the prior Pretrial Order and

19

allow both parties to disclose video experts, with the supplemental

20

disclosures to be completed approximately thirty days following the

21

Court’s granting of Defendants’ motion and both parties allowed the

22

opportunity

23

thereafter.” (Mot. 4:15-19.) A pretrial scheduling order issued on June

24

22, 2010, scheduling April 21, 2011 as the deadline for disclosure of

25

expert witnesses and September 21, 2011 as the discovery completion

26

date. (ECF No. 16.)

to

provide

rebuttal

experts

approximately

thirty

days

27

However, the pretrial scheduling order may only be modified if

28

the movant for modification shows that “good cause,” prescribed in

1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), justifies the modification.

2

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of

3

the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975

4

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “If [the moving party] was not diligent,

5

the inquiry should end.” Id.

6

Defendants make the conclusory argument that they “have shown

7

good cause through their diligent prosecuting of discovery and their

8

extensive attempts to locate and depose [the YouTube video author] long

9

prior to the discovery cut-off running.” (Mot. 4:13-14.) However,

10

Defendants also argue that “the video on YouTube appears to have been

11

heavily

12

question.” (Mot. 2:27-28.) Defendants do not explain when they first

13

questioned

14

authenticity should have been questioned earlier during the pendency of

15

the proceeding. Further, at the hearing on the motion, Defendants’

16

counsel admitted that he was unable to provide dates pertinent to the

17

“good cause” inquiry.

edited

before

the

being

video’s

posted.

Thus,

authenticity;

its

nor

authenticity

whether

the

is

in

video’s

18

Defendants failure to sufficiently explain when they first

19

realized they needed a video expert to challenge the authenticity of the

20

YouTube video, and/or why that need was not realized earlier in the

21

proceeding,

22

justifies the scheduling order amendments they seek. Since Defendants

23

have

24

disclosure dates in the scheduling order, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

25

Dated:

not

does

shown

not

that

support

“good

their

cause”

contention

justifies

that

“good

amending

December 19, 2011

26
27
28

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

2

the

cause”

expert