Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 580

ORDER RE EXPERT DISCOVERY DISPUTES re 552 Letter Brief, filed by Tom Ridge, National Counterterrorism Center, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Department of State, Arthur M. Cummings, II, Janet Napolitano, Hilary Clinton, Federal Bureau of Inve stigation, Michael E. Leiter, Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security, Terrorist Screening Center, Leonard C. Boyle, Robert Mueller, Donna A. Bucella, 576 Status Report Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 24, 2013. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RAHINAH IBRAHIM,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 06-00545 WHA

v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,

ORDER RE EXPERT
DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Defendants.
/

16
17
18
19

The parties have raised two discovery disputes over the expert report of plaintiff’s expert
Professor Jeffrey Kahn and the sources he relied on in preparing his report.
First, the government contends that an index linking paragraphs of Professor Kahn’s

20

report to large page ranges in Professor Kahn’s book (which is incorporated into the report by

21

reference) fails to identify what materials Professor Kahn considered in forming his opinions.

22

This order agrees. As stated in the case management scheduling order and supplemental order,

23

expert “reports must be complete and sufficiently detailed” and must disclose all “opinions,

24

bases, reasons and other information considered by an expert” (Dkt. No. 400 at 2; Dkt. No. 359

25

at 6). At trial, the direct testimony of experts will be limited to the four corners of their reports.

26

Plaintiff’s expert will not be permitted to rely on pages of an exhibit incorporated into the report

27

by reference that rely in turn on multiple underlying footnotes. Plaintiff may revise the expert

28

report so that it includes the specific “facts or data considered” by Professor Kahn by

1

NOVEMBER 1 AT NOON. Thereafter, the government may conduct a one-day deposition of

2

Professor Kahn regarding these revisions.

notes for interviews that he considered in forming his expert opinions. The government should

5

have served subpoenas for the notes prior to the deposition of Professor Kahn. These documents

6

are not required to be automatically produced. In light of Professor Kahn’s statement at his

7

deposition that he considered the interview notes in forming his opinions, however, the

8

government will be permitted to subpoena the notes for trial. If the government elects to serve

9

such subpoenas, the notes must be produced at least 24 hours prior to any further deposition

10

testimony by Professor Kahn. By OCTOBER 31 AT NOON plaintiff’s counsel will advise the

11
For the Northern District of California

Second, the parties dispute whether plaintiff should produce Professor Kahn’s interview

4

United States District Court

3

government in writing whether they would accept such a subpoena for these records, and if not,

12

the burden shall be on the government to subpoena the expert directly.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: October 24, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2