Robinson et al v. City of Redding et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/28/2017 ORDERING 79 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is DENIED without prejudice as untimely. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATHERINE ROBINSON, et al. 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-2910-KJM-KJN Plaintiffs, v. ORDER CITY OF REDDING, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ supplemental 19 expert disclosure, filed on September 22, 2017. (ECF No. 79.) The motion has not been noticed 20 for a hearing in accordance with Local Rule 251. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is 21 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as untimely. 22 The district judge’s operative scheduling order required expert disclosures to be made 23 simultaneously on July 31, 2017, and supplemental expert disclosures to be made simultaneously 24 on August 14, 2017. (ECF No. 65.) The order also required expert discovery to be completed by 25 September 30, 2017. (ECF No. 63.) For purposes of the scheduling order, “completed” means 26 that “all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any 27 disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, 28 where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed.” (ECF No. 56.) 1 1 In this case, both plaintiffs and defendants timely filed initial expert witness disclosures 2 on July 31, 2017, and defendants also timely filed a supplemental expert witness disclosure on 3 August 14, 2017. (ECF Nos. 69, 70, 75.) Plaintiffs then filed the instant motion on September 4 22, 2017, seeking to strike defendants’ supplemental expert witness disclosure as purportedly 5 improper. (ECF No. 79.) 6 Plaintiffs’ motion is clearly untimely under the operative scheduling order, because it was 7 filed mere days before the expert discovery completion deadline, and with insufficient time for 8 the motion to be heard pursuant to Local Rule 251 and decided prior to September 30, 2017. 9 Furthermore, the undersigned cannot modify the scheduling order in this case, which specifically 10 provides that “while the assigned magistrate judge handles discovery motions, the magistrate 11 judge cannot change the schedule set in this order, even in connection with a discovery matter.” 12 (ECF No. 56 at 2.) Moreover, even if the undersigned were authorized to modify the scheduling 13 order, plaintiffs have not set forth any good cause to do so. Because defendants’ supplemental 14 expert disclosure was timely made on August 14, 2017, plaintiffs had sufficient time to bring and 15 have heard an appropriate motion prior to expiration of the expert discovery completion deadline. 16 Therefore, the court DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE as untimely. Nothing 17 in this order precludes the parties from raising this matter with the district judge as a motion in 18 limine or other appropriate trial motion, to be decided in the district judge’s discretion. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 This order resolves ECF No. 79. 21 Dated: September 28, 2017 22 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?