Vieste, LLC et al v. Hill Redwood Development, LTD. et al

Filing 396

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 389 Defendants' Renewed Administrative Motion to Designate Rebuttal Expert.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
VIESTE, LLC, ET AL.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO DESIGNATE REBUTTAL
EXPERT

HILL REDWOOD DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.,

15

No. C-09-04024 JSW (DMR)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

16
17

The court has reviewed Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Administrative Relief to Disclose

18

Rebuttal Expert Testimony and From Discovery Deadlines, and Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto.

19

[Docket Nos. 389, 395.] This matter may be determined without oral argument pursuant to Civil

20

L.R. 7-1(b).

21

Defendants’ renewed motion seeks leave to disclose a rebuttal expert on the topic of alter

22

ego.1 On June 30, 2011, the court denied Defendants’ original request without prejudice, pending

23

the outcome of the motions for summary judgment and a July 2011 settlement conference. Judge

24

White issued orders on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment on November 28, 2011.

25

[Docket Nos. 379 and 380.] Although it appears that Defendants retained their expert in May or

26
27
28

1

Given that the question of whether to pierce the corporate veil ultimately will be decided
by Judge White rather than the jury (see Docket No. 383), it remains unclear whether Judge White
will even allow expert testimony on alter ego.

1

June 2011, they did not renew their request until recently. Defendants have yet to reveal the name

2

of the expert to Plaintiffs or provide them with an expert report.

3

Defendants’ renewed request comes too late. This case is simply too close to trial for the

4

parties to engage in further expert disclosure and attendant discovery. The matter is set for a

5

February 27, 2012 jury trial. At the parties’ request, Judge White issued a detailed order regarding

6

significant pretrial submissions this month, in advance of the February 6, 2012 pretrial conference.

7

Further expert development would disrupt this schedule and jeopardize the trial judge’s ability to

8

convene a useful pretrial conference.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Dated: January 3, 2012
12
13

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2