Baldasano v. County of San Benito et al
Filing
98
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND EXPERT DISCLOSURES by Judge Jon S. Tigar denying 95 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Amend Expert Disclosure or OST to Hear Motion. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
NANCY MARTINEZ,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
COUNTY OF SAN BENITO, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 15-cv-00331-JST
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
EXPERT DISCLOSURES
Re: ECF No. 95
12
Before the Court is Plaintiff Nancy Martinez’s motion for leave to amend her expert
13
14
disclosures. ECF No. 95. Martinez seeks to disclose an expert, Dr. Lipton, who has not
15
previously been disclosed, to take the place of a previously disclosed expert, Dr. Stimac. The
16
Court also construes the motion as asking for leave to provide a late report from Dr. Greene, an
17
expert who was previously disclosed but who never produced an expert report. Martinez intends
18
to offer both experts’ testimony in opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on her
19
wrongful death claim. The Court will deny the motion.
20
The wrongful death claim was included in Martinez’s first amended complaint. ECF No.
21
68 at 11-12. The deadline to disclose experts related to that claim was February 23, 2018.1 ECF
22
No. 71 at 1.
Martinez timely disclosed Dr. Greene on August 14, 2017. But the disclosure failed to
23
24
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which requires that disclosures of
25
experts who are “retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case” ‒ like
26
Dr. Greene ‒ must be “accompanied by a written report.” Martinez did not provide a report with
27
28
1
The Court set a later deadline for claims raised for the first time in the second amended
complaint. ECF No. 87 at 1.
1
her disclosure and instead stated that, “the report is not complete because of the untimely death of
2
Justin Baldasano [on April 29, 2017]; additional information is needed in order for Dr. Greene to
3
complete his report.” ECF No. 95 at 15. However, even if this explanation were sufficient to
4
allow a belated expert report ‒ a question this Court does not decide ‒ no report has ever been
5
produced in this case. Defense counsel’s declaration states that he has “never received a report
6
from Dr. Greene,” ECF No. 96 at 6, and Martinez has provided no contrary evidence.
7
As to Dr. Lipton, Martinez acknowledges that any disclosure would be untimely, and she
8
unsuccessfully sought a stipulation from Defendants for leave to amend her expert disclosures.
9
ECF No. 95 at 4. She contends that the late disclosure is warranted based on new information
obtained from the deposition of the coroner, Dr. O’Hara, which was originally noticed for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
January 22, 2018, but not completed until March 28, 2018. However, Martinez fails to mention
12
that Dr. O’Hara’s deposition was noticed by Defendants, not Martinez. ECF No. 92 at 2. In
13
addition, Martinez received the autopsy performed by Dr. O’Hara on July 13, 2017. ECF No.
14
96-1 at 2. Martinez contends that, “[t]he deposition of the medical examiner who performed the
15
autopsy was instrumental in understanding the mechanism and dynamics of the cause of death,”
16
ECF No. 95 at 6, but she does not explain why she did not notice Dr. O’Hara’s deposition or seek
17
other discovery on this issue, or why it would not have been sufficient for her own experts to
18
review the autopsy.
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides: “If a party fails to provide information
20
or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that
21
information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure
22
was substantially justified or is harmless.” In addition to, or instead of that sanction, the court
23
may also impose any of the other appropriate sanctions provided for in Rule 37. Fed. R. Civ. P.
24
37(c)(1)(A)-(C). “The party facing sanctions bears the burden of proving that its failure to
25
disclose the required information was substantially justified or is harmless.” R & R Sails, Inc. v.
26
Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012).
27
28
Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to Rule 26’s disclosure and supplementation requirements,
including the requirement that parties disclose experts and expert reports “at the times and in the
2
1
sequence that the court orders.” Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101,
2
1106 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993
3
amendments to Rule 37 describe subsection (c)(1) as a “self-executing,” “automatic sanction [that]
4
provides a strong inducement for disclosure of material” that must be disclosed pursuant to
5
Rule 26. Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions based on failure to disclose evidence in a timely manner may be
6
appropriate “even when a litigant’s entire cause of action or defense” will be precluded. Yeti, 259
7
F.3d at 1106. The Ninth Circuit has recognized, however, that “evidence preclusion is, or at least
8
can be, a ‘harsh’ sanction,” and where a “sanction amount[s] to dismissal of a claim, the district
9
court [is] required to consider whether the claimed noncompliance involved willfulness, fault, or
10
bad faith.” R & R Sails, 673 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Yeti, 259 F.3d at 1106) (alteration omitted).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Martinez has not provided substantial justification for her delay. Although she claims that
12
she only became aware of the need for an additional expert after the deposition of Dr. O’Hara, she
13
provides no justification for why she failed to notice that deposition earlier ‒ or at all ‒ following
14
receipt of the autopsy report in July 2017. Moreover, Martinez states that Dr. Stimac informed
15
counsel before March 9, 2018, “that because the diagnostic studies were inconclusive, he could
16
not be of assistance.” ECF No. 95 at 2. Thus, the need for a different medical expert was apparent
17
before the March 28 deposition of Dr. O’Hara, and Martinez presents no explanation for why it
18
could not have been discovered before the February 23 expert disclosure deadline. Nor does she
19
explain why, months after his initial disclosure, Dr. Greene has been unable to produce an expert
20
report.
21
In addition, Martinez’s untimely disclosures are not harmless. “Disruption to the schedule
22
of the court and other parties in that manner is not harmless. Courts set such schedules to permit
23
the court and the parties to deal with cases in a thorough and orderly manner, and they must be
24
allowed to enforce them, unless there are good reasons not to.” Wong v. Regents of Univ. of
25
California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005). Trial is scheduled to begin on July 9, 2018, with
26
a pretrial conference on June 15, 2018, and a pretrial conference statement due on June 5, 2018.
27
ECF No. 71 at 2. The parties have known about these dates since October 3, 2017. Id. Martinez
28
asserts on reply that any prejudice to Defendants can be cured by allowing Defendants’ experts an
3
1
opportunity to amend their reports, but this ignores the unavailability of one of Defendants’
2
experts, see ECF No. 96 at 6, as well as Defendants’ likely desire to depose Dr. Lipton and
3
perhaps conduct a further deposition of Dr. Greene. This would undoubtedly delay the briefing on
4
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and impact the trial date.
5
Finally, Martinez’s conduct in this case was willful. “‘[D]isobedient conduct not shown to
6
be outside the control of the litigant’ is all that is required to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or
7
fault.” Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fjelstad v. Am.
8
Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1985)). Martinez has not persuaded the Court
9
that the delays at issue were outside her control. To the contrary, Martinez’s inability to satisfy
10
the expert disclosure deadlines in this case appear to be entirely of her own making.
CONCLUSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Martinez’s motion to provide a late expert report from Dr. Greene and to amend her expert
13
disclosures to add Dr. Lipton is denied.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
Dated: April 17, 2018
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?