Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1157

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1156 Opposition/Response to Motion Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of Defendants' Oppositions to Oracle's Motions in Limine filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23)(Related document(s) 1156 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/10/2012)

EXHIBIT 17

Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2022027 (N.D.Cal.)
(Cite as: 2007 WL 2022027 (N.D.Cal.))

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California,
San Jose Division.
Arthur G. MAIONCHI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant.
No. C 03-0647 JF PVT.
July 9, 2007.
David D. Cooke, Melanie L. Tang, Allen Matkins
Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, Stuart I. Block, Cox
Castle & Nicholson LLP, San Francisco, CA, for
Plaintiffs.
Marc A. Zeppetello, Esq., John F. Barg, Barg
Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP, San Francisco, CA,
for Defendant.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY;
AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DISTRICT
JUDGE FOGEL EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY
OF WILLIAM GWIRE
PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 On July 2, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
exclude the testimony of experts Plaintiffs argue
FN1
were not timely disclosed.
Defendant opposed
the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted
by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue
this order without oral argument. Based on the
moving and opposition papers filed,
FN1. The holding of this court is limited to
the facts and the particular circumstances
underlying the present motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED with regard to Gary Hokkanen.
Under Rule 37(c)(1), “[a] party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information re-

quired by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1) ... is not, unless
such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at trial, at a hearing, or on motion any witness
or information not so disclosed.” District courts are
permitted particularly wide latitude in imposing
sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1). See Yeti by Molly,
Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101,
1106 (9th Cir.2001). Exclusion of Mr. Hokkanen is
thus appropriate only if Defendant was not substantially justified in disclosing him after the deadline
for expert disclosures set in the scheduling order,
and Plaintiffs were harmed by the delay. In the
present case, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Mr.
Hokkanen is a rebuttal expert. The fact that Defendant and its expert were able to see Plaintiffs' expert's report before providing Mr. Hokkanen's report did not constitute harm because that is the usual course for rebuttal experts. As expert discovery
is still open, Plaintiffs may still depose Mr.
Hokkanen. Under all the circumstances of this case,
Defendants' delay in disclosing this expert and his
report has not caused harm to Plaintiffs that would
FN2
warrant exclusion of this expert's testimony.
FN2. Because the court finds Defendant's
delay in disclosing Mr. Hokkanen and his
report was harmless, the court does not address the issue of substantial justification.
While there is a good argument for finding
the timing of the disclosure of Mr.
Hokkanen to be substantially justified, the
timing of the disclosure of his report is
questionable.
IT IS RECOMMENDED, however, that District Judge Fogel exclude from any motion or trial
the testimony and report of William Gwire. Mr.
Gwire, who opines about the reasonableness of certain attorneys fees included in Plaintiffs' damage
calculations, is not a rebuttal expert because the expert he purportedly “rebuts” is not an attorney and
does not opine regarding the reasonableness of the
subject attorneys fees. Defendant has not shown it
was substantially justified in waiting 30 days after

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2022027 (N.D.Cal.)
(Cite as: 2007 WL 2022027 (N.D.Cal.))

the expert disclosure deadline to disclose an expert
who is not a rebuttal expert. Nor has Defendant
shown that its unjustified delay was harmless. Under the current schedule, which has already been
extended twice, there is insufficient time for
Plaintiffs to retain an expert to rebut Mr. Gwire's
opinion, for that expert to prepare a report, and for
Defendant to depose that expert all within the remaining 7 business days before the close of expert
discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party
may serve and file specific written objections to
this recommendation within ten (10) working days
after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); CIVIL L.R.
72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified
time may waive the right to appeal the court's order.
N.D.Cal.,2007.
Maionchi v. Union Pacific Corp.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2022027
(N.D.Cal.)
END OF DOCUMENT

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.