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