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)
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?