Alvarez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al

Filing 41

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN ALVAREZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-00943-TLN-DB

v.

ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On May 11, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order in the instant action. (ECF No. 26.)

17
18

The Court later issued an amended ordered requiring that disclosure of expert witnesses be

19

completed by May 2, 2017. (ECF No. 35.) On May 2, 2017, both parties filed a designation or

20

disclosure of expert witnesses. (ECF Nos. 36 & 37.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank (“Defendant”)

21

filed objections to Plaintiff John Alvarez’s (“Plaintiff”) expert witness designation. (ECF No.

22

40.)

23

Plaintiff stated in his designation that he did not presently have expert witnesses to

24

disclose. (ECF No. 37 at 1.) However, Plaintiff identified Jenna Voyavich and Dr. Anita Prabhu

25

as potential witnesses who have treated or will treat Plaintiff for mental and emotional distress

26

and high blood pressure, respectively. (ECF No. 37 at 2.) Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s disclosure

27

is not in compliance with the Court’s scheduling order because Plaintiff fails to provide expert

28

witness reports. (ECF No. 40 at 2.) Defendant argues it was provided with insufficient
1

1

information to meaningfully assess whether Plaintiff will present these witnesses as experts and

2

prepare rebuttal experts or testimony. (ECF No. 40 at 2.) Defendant requests the Court order

3

Plaintiff to file an expert disclosure in accordance with the scheduling order or in the alternative

4

preclude Jenna Voyavich and Dr. Anita Prabhu from testifying at trial. The Court declines to do

5

either.

6

A treating physician is exempt from the written report requirement to the extent that their

7

opinions were formed during the course of treatment. See Goodman v. Staples, 644 F.3d 817,

8

826 (2011). Here, the Court is not presently in the position to determine the extent to which

9

Plaintiff’s witnesses seek to testify. Plaintiff stated in his disclosure that if called upon to testify,

10

Jenna Voyavich and Dr. Anita Prabhu would testify as percipient witnesses and Plaintiff would

11

make them available for depositions. Furthermore, Plaintiff explained he would update his expert

12

disclosure as soon as the need arose. Accordingly, Defendant’s objections and request to either

13

require additional reports or preclude testimony at trial is premature and is a matter better suited

14

for motions in limine at trial.

15
16
17
18

Defendants request to require additional expert disclosure or preclude testimony at trial is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2017

19
20

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2