Hoffmann v. Corning Police Department
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 12/04/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's 78 Objections, construed as a request for reconsideration, is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBIN LEE HOFFMANN,
No. 2:14-cv-2736 MCE KJN P
CORNING POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. On October 18, 2017, plaintiff
filed objections to the magistrate judge’s August 29, 2017 order, denying without prejudice
defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert witness, but requiring plaintiff to bear the costs of
her expert’s deposition. The undersigned construes her filing as a request for reconsideration.
During the August 24, 2017 hearing on defendants’ motion, the magistrate judge
addressed defendants’ motion in light of plaintiff’s failure to provide an expert report with her
expert disclosure, as well as plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to the motion. ECF No. 69 at
5. The magistrate judge offered to level the playing field by having plaintiff bear the costs of her
expert’s deposition, rather than excluding the expert witness. “Plaintiff agreed.” ECF No. 69 at
5. Despite such agreement, on October 18, 2017, plaintiff filed an objection to the order to
produce plaintiff’s expert witness for deposition at plaintiff’s expense. ECF No. 78. Plaintiff
claims that this is burdensome and prejudicial, and argues that Rule 26(b)(4) requires the other
party to pay the expert a reasonable fee for the time spent in responding to discovery and also to
pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses it reasonably incurred in obtaining the
expert’s facts and opinions. ECF No. 78 at 2. Plaintiff claims she has acquired $8,000 in credit
card debt and has an outstanding balance of an additional $7,000 to her expert, Dr. Lieberman,
who recently raised the deposition fee by $3,000, for a total of $18,000 for the deposition by the
defense. ECF No. 78 at 2.
Local Rule 303 provides:
Rulings by Magistrate Judges pursuant to this Rule shall be final if
no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen
(14) days calculated from the date of service of the ruling on the
parties, unless a different time is prescribed by the Magistrate Judge
or the Judge.
E.D. L.R. 303(b).
Here, plaintiff’s request for reconsideration was filed 51 days after the magistrate judge
issued his order on August 28, 2017. Plaintiff’s request is untimely and is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 78),
construed as a request for reconsideration, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2017
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?