Alvarez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 05/23/17 ORDERING that defendants' 40 request to require additional expert disclosure or preclude testimony at trial is hereby DENIED. (Benson, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
On May 11, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order in the instant action. (ECF No. 26.)
The Court later issued an amended ordered requiring that disclosure of expert witnesses be
completed by May 2, 2017. (ECF No. 35.) On May 2, 2017, both parties filed a designation or
disclosure of expert witnesses. (ECF Nos. 36 & 37.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank (“Defendant”)
filed objections to Plaintiff John Alvarez’s (“Plaintiff”) expert witness designation. (ECF No.
Plaintiff stated in his designation that he did not presently have expert witnesses to
disclose. (ECF No. 37 at 1.) However, Plaintiff identified Jenna Voyavich and Dr. Anita Prabhu
as potential witnesses who have treated or will treat Plaintiff for mental and emotional distress
and high blood pressure, respectively. (ECF No. 37 at 2.) Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s disclosure
is not in compliance with the Court’s scheduling order because Plaintiff fails to provide expert
witness reports. (ECF No. 40 at 2.) Defendant argues it was provided with insufficient
information to meaningfully assess whether Plaintiff will present these witnesses as experts and
prepare rebuttal experts or testimony. (ECF No. 40 at 2.) Defendant requests the Court order
Plaintiff to file an expert disclosure in accordance with the scheduling order or in the alternative
preclude Jenna Voyavich and Dr. Anita Prabhu from testifying at trial. The Court declines to do
A treating physician is exempt from the written report requirement to the extent that their
opinions were formed during the course of treatment. See Goodman v. Staples, 644 F.3d 817,
826 (2011). Here, the Court is not presently in the position to determine the extent to which
Plaintiff’s witnesses seek to testify. Plaintiff stated in his disclosure that if called upon to testify,
Jenna Voyavich and Dr. Anita Prabhu would testify as percipient witnesses and Plaintiff would
make them available for depositions. Furthermore, Plaintiff explained he would update his expert
disclosure as soon as the need arose. Accordingly, Defendant’s objections and request to either
require additional reports or preclude testimony at trial is premature and is a matter better suited
for motions in limine at trial.
Defendants request to require additional expert disclosure or preclude testimony at trial is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2017
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?