Piland, et al. v. Markwort Sporting Goods Company, et al.

Filing 56

ORDER REGARDING EXPERT WITNESSES signed by William H Orrick, III, on 7/17/2018 DENYING Plaintiff's request to exclude rebuttal experts or alternatively set a hearing and shortened briefing schedule on the same subject. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PILAND,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Eastern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-01782-WHO
ORDER REGARDING EXPERT
WITNESSES

v.
MARKWORT SPOERTING GOODS
COMPANY, et. al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 55

Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties have filed a joint discovery dispute letter concerning the defendants’ rebuttal
experts. Plaintiff’s request to exclude them or alternatively set a hearing and shortened briefing
schedule on the same subject is denied.
Initially, plaintiff disclosed eight experts on May 29, 2018 while defendants disclosed
three. Defendants represent that to cover the opinions of plaintiff’s experts that defendants’
experts had not addressed, they identified an additional six rebuttal experts. Plaintiff seeks to
strike them for failing to submit a written report and/or not being a proper rebuttal witness
because, among other reasons, the opinions should have been anticipated and their reports fail to
respond to plaintiff’s expert’s opinions or are nonexistent.
At this juncture, I will not preclude any of the experts from testifying. Defendants offer
sufficient reasons for disclosing the experts and how the opinions they intend to rebut. They
represent that the experts were not contacted until after the initial disclosures were made,
indicating that they were not gaming the time of disclosure. Two of the six rebuttal experts helped
prepare the report of another expert, and presumably will not need to testify unless it is necessary
to do so in order to provide a basis for the opinions in the report.

1

To the extent some of the opinions should have been anticipated, plaintiff identifies no

2

prejudice other than the cost and time required to prepare for and take the depositions. In this

3

regard, if any Daubert motion is granted on the basis of an expert’s redundancy, I will consider

4

reimbursing the deposing party for fees and costs related to deposition. Further, I remind the

5

parties that in federal court, expert reports need to be complete. See Fed. R. Civ. P 26 (a)(2). As

6

set at the last case management conference, Daubert motions should be filed by August 20, 2018,

7

with oppositions and replies filed as ordered. See Dkt. No. 53. They will be heard at the Pretrial

8

Conference on September 24, 2018.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2018

United States District Court
Eastern District of California

11
12
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2