Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. et al
Filing
264
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE THE REPORTS OF EVERETT P. HARRY AND STAN V. SMITH by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 243 Motion to Strike. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DEBORAH TAMBURRI,
Case No. 11-cv-02899-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE THE REPORTS OF EVERETT
P. HARRY AND STAN V. SMITH
Re: Dkt. No. 243
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Expert Reports of Everett P. Harry
13
14
15
16
and Stan v. Smith, ECF No. 243. The court will grant the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action was reassigned to the undersigned on February 11, 2013. ECF No. 174. The
17
deadline for disclosure of expert reports was March 15, 2013. ECF No. 143. The expert
18
discovery cutoff was April 26, 2013. Id.
19
Following a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s scheduling
20
order, this court granted Plaintiff a limited extension of the expert discovery cutoff “for the sole
21
purpose of permitting the parties to disclose expert reports based, at least in part, on the Rule
22
30(b)(6) deposition testimony of the named Defendants.” ECF No. 229 p. 3. The court noted that
23
an extension of the expert discovery deadline was appropriate because of the prejudice that would
24
otherwise result, given Judge Ryu’s April 11, 2013 order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel the
25
30(b)(6) depositions of the five Defendants, ECF No. 214. The court set a deadline of May 15,
26
2013, for disclosure of expert reports. ECF No. 229 p. 4.
27
28
After Plaintiff served her expert reports, Defendants moved to strike two of them — the
reports of Everett P. Harry and Stan V. Smith — because they are not “based, at least in part, on
1
the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony of the named Defendants,” as required by this court’s April
2
19, 2013 Order extending the expert discovery deadline. The court held a hearing on the Motion
3
on June 17, 2013. ECF No. 263.
4
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Parties wishing to rely on expert opinions must disclose those opinions and the facts or
5
data considered in forming them “at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” Fed. R.
7
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). Failure to comply with a court’s discovery orders may lead to discovery
8
sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b). Moreover, “[i]f a party fails to
9
provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed
10
to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). In addition to, or
12
instead of that sanction, the court may also impose any of the other appropriate sanctions provided
13
for in Rule 37. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C).
The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 amendments to Rule 37 describe subsection
14
15
(c)(1) as a “self-executing,” “automatic” sanction to “provide[ ] a strong inducement for disclosure
16
of material” that must be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26. Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions based on failure
17
to disclose evidence in a timely manner may be appropriate “even when a litigant’s entire cause of
18
action or defense” will be precluded. Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d
19
1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). In this way, Rule 37 “gives teeth” to Rule 26’s disclosure and
20
supplementation requirements, including the requirement that parties follow court scheduling
21
orders in making their disclosures. Id.
Preclusion of late-filed evidence is not appropriate if the party’s failure to provide
22
23
information was “substantially justified” or “is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). However,
24
“[d]isruption to the schedule of the court and other parties . . . is not harmless.” Wong v. Regents
25
of Univ. of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005).
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
III.
ANALYSIS
This court extended the expert discovery deadline solely to permit Plaintiff to prepare
2
3
expert reports that relied on the deposition testimony of the named Defendants — testimony that
4
Plaintiff was not able to take until after Judge Ryu overruled Defendants’ objections on April 11,
5
2013. See ECF No. 214. Defendants move to strike the expert reports of Everett P. Harry and
6
Stan V. Smith because those reports do not rely on that deposition testimony. The court agrees.
At the hearing on Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline, the court made clear
7
that any expert reports disclosed after the original expert discovery deadline must relate to that
9
Rule 30(b)(6) testimony. On the question of expert opinions on damages in particular, the court
10
asked Plaintiff’s counsel: “How are the 30(b)(6) depositions relevant to the damages suffered by
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
your client?” Tr. 22:6–7 (April 18, 2013). Plaintiff’s counsel responded:
12
Well, Your Honor, I do think there is some limited relevance, I
would say that; and that is, that as alleged in the Complaint, there
were ‒ there's an incentive of fees that were paid out. You know,
the fees that were paid out were part of the default process and there
was an incentive by the defendants to drag out the default process.
13
14
15
Tr. 22:8–13. At that hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel also discussed the preparation of expert reports
16
on liability issues, which it characterized as closely related to the Rule 30(b)(6) testimony Plaintiff
17
had not yet taken.
In its Order granting the discovery extension, the court noted: “To the extent Defendants’
18
19
delay in producing their witnesses prejudiced Plaintiff in the preparation of her case, she is entitled
20
to some redress.” ECF NO. 229 p. 3. Accordingly, the court granted a limited extension of the
21
expert discovery schedule “for the sole purpose of permitting the parties to disclose expert reports
22
based, at least in part, on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony of the named Defendants.” Id. at
23
3–4.
24
After reviewing the parties’ submissions and the reports at issue, the court finds that the
25
expert reports of Everett P. Harry and Stan V. Smith are not based, in any part, on "the Rule
26
30(b)(6) deposition testimony of the named Defendants." Neither report analyzes or relies upon
27
the Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of any named Defendant; in fact, the reports merely state that their
28
authors reviewed the 30(b)(6) deposition transcripts, and, in addition, each report states: “SunTrust
3
1
30(b)(6) witnesses testified that borrowers in default are charged for attorney’s fees, and other
2
fees, associated with the foreclosure process . . . .” Mot., ECF No. 243, Ex. A p. 3; Ex. B p. 5.
3
The reports do not mention the deposition testimony in any other way, nor do they rely on any
4
facts learned in the depositions. Indeed, Defendants argue without serious contradiction that they
5
long ago produced the damages information necessary to the preparation of these reports.
6
Plaintiff's counsel confirmed this fact at the hearing on the motion.
7
Mr. Harry, an accountant, prepared a report that seeks to quantify Plaintiff’s lost past and
8
future earnings resulting from “her deep-seated, enduring emotional harm” caused by the
9
Defendants’ alleged conduct. Mot., Ex. A p. 3. Although the report alludes to “foreclosurespecific costs that Ms. Tamburri has incurred,” id., Plaintiff has not shown that the Rule 30(b)(6)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
deposition testimony of the named Defendants was necessary to calculate that figure.
12
Dr. Smith prepared a report calculating “(1) the additional cost of mortgage expenses; and
13
(2) the loss of credit expectancy.” Mot., Ex. B p. 1. Dr. Smith’s methodology was “generally
14
based on interest rates and consumer prices.” Id. Nothing in Dr. Smith’s report relies upon
15
testimony or facts related to the 30(b)(6) depositions.
16
Plaintiff also argues that the production of the Harry and Smith expert reports at this
17
juncture is justified because of alleged discovery misconduct by the Defendants — in particular,
18
withholding documents requested through Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices that are relevant to
19
Plaintiff’s expert reports. Whether such misconduct occurred, and the nature of an appropriate
20
remedy if it did occur, are questions for another day. For today's purposes, Plaintiff's argument
21
merely confirms that the Smith and Harry expert reports were not based on the 30(b)(6)
22
depositions ordered by Judge Ryu, which was a precondition of the reports' late production.
23
Plaintiff has also failed to show that her violation of the court’s April 19, 2013 Order was
24
substantially justified or harmless. Consequently, Rule 37(c)(1)’s self-executing sanction, though
25
it may exclude relevant evidence or even prejudice Plaintiff’s case, applies here. See, e.g.,
26
Quevedo v. Trans-Pac. Shipping, Inc., 143 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir.1998) (refusing to consider
27
expert's report because it was filed one-and-a-half months late); Jarritos, Inc. v. Reyes, 345 F.
28
App’x 215, 217 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming exclusion of late-filed expert reports).
4
1
2
IV.
CONCLUSION
The court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Expert Reports of Everett P.
3
Harry and Stan V. Smith. Plaintiff may not rely upon either report, or expert, to supply evidence
4
on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?