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.)
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?