Allison v. E Center

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/31/12: Plaintiff's Objections are sustained 10 . (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY ALLISON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-00455-MCE-CMK

ORDER

v.
E CENTER,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On May 21, 2012, this Court issued its Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO” or “Order”).

18

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections (“Objections”) to that Order. Plaintiff has

19

identified for the Court a latent ambiguity within the PTSO that makes the Order susceptible to

20

the interpretation that the Court intends to depart from the requirements of the Federal Rules of

21

Civil Procedure with respect to the exchange of expert witness reports. That is not the Court’s

22

intention. Accordingly, the Court now clarifies that, in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), the parties to this case are not required to exchange expert reports drafted

24

by percipient experts.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1
2
3

Rather, in conformity with Rule 26, the designation of each retained expert shall be accompanied
by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 10) are
thus sustained.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: July 31, 2012
__________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10

DEAC_Signature-END:

11
12

c4d6b0d3

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2