M. et al v. Drycreek Joint Elemtnary School District et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/13/2011 ORDERING that in light of the present record, it has not been shown that the objection should be sustained. Therefore the objection is OVERRULED. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 G.M., a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, KEVIN MARCHESE, an individual, and LYNDI MARCHESE, an individual, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 v. 13 DRY CREEK JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 14 Defendant. ________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-00944-GEB-GGH ORDER 15 16 Defendant filed an Objection to Plaintiff’s expert witnesses 17 disclosure, to which Plaintiff filed a Response. Defendant subsequently 18 noticed 19 disclosure was filed late [on October 3, 2011] and is devoid of the 20 statutorily required [expert reports or summaries of the experts’ 21 expected opinions and testimony].” (Def.’s Objection 2:1-2.) Defendant 22 requests that “the Court reject [Plaintiff’s] filing or alternatively, 23 that the Court require [Plaintiff] to file a corrected disclosure.” (Id. 24 2:4-5.) the objection for hearing. Defendant argues that “[the] 25 Plaintiff argues the disclosure was timely, since he served 26 Defendant with his Initial Expert Witness Disclosure via email on 27 September 30, 2011. (Pl.’s Resp. 2:3-23; id. at Ex. 1 (email from 28 Plaintiff to Defendant disclosing expert witness list).) Defendant does 1 1 not deny that it timely received the email from Plaintiff. Defendant has 2 not provided authority supporting its position that the expert witness 3 disclosure was required to be filed with the Court. 4 Plaintiff argues his expert witness disclosure complies with 5 Rule 26(a)(2), since he included the following information with the 6 disclosure: 7 9 The foregoing experts have been previously disclosed with complete curriculum vitae provided and testimony in the underlying administrative action’s Evidence Packet, section 90, previously exchanged with Defendant. 10 (Pl.’s Resp. 3:22-25.) Plaintiff also argues Defendant “[is] fully aware 11 of what the anticipated testimony is—each of these experts have offered 12 declarations/opinion in this case before in the lower courts and each 13 party has referred to these experts multiple times throughout the 14 briefing.” (Pl.’s Resp. 4:2-5.) Defendant does not dispute that it has 15 the aforementioned information about the expert witnesses, and has not 16 filed a reply brief. In light of the present record, it has not been 17 shown that the objection should be sustained. Therefore the objection is 18 overruled. 19 Dated: 8 December 13, 2011 20 21 22 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?