Kirola et al v. City & County of San Francisco, The et al

Filing 537

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting in part and denying in part 523 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2011)

Kirola et al v. City & County of San Francisco, The et al

Doc. 537

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IVANA KIROLA, et al., 9 10 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION Case No: C 07-03685 SBA ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND EXHIBIT LIST, WITNESS LIST, AND TO PERMIT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS OF PLAINTIFFS' EXPERTS D. PAUL REGAN AND ERICH SEAMON Dkt. 523

Plaintiffs, vs.

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 12 FRANCISCO, et al.,
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants.

The parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Exhibit List, Witness List, and to Permit Supplemental Expert Reports, filed on March 29, 2011. Dkt. 523. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for the reasons set forth below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which will not be repeated in detail. At the January 25, 2011 pretrial conference, the Court granted Defendant the City and County of San Francisco ("City") leave to amend its trial exhibit list to reflect the current conditions in the City's public rights of way, libraries, park facilities, and financial condition, as the initial trial date in this matter had been continued. See Dkt. 462. The Court also granted the parties leave to conduct additional discovery directed to the new exhibits identified in the City's

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

motion for leave. On March 29, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend Exhibit List, Witness List, and to Permit Supplemental Expert Reports. The City opposes Plaintiffs' motion in part, as discussed below. Trial in this matter is scheduled for April 4, 2011. II. ANALYSIS Plaintiffs assert that their proposed amendments to their witness list and trial exhibit list are necessary in view of the additional discovery conducted with respect to the City's newly added exhibits. In addition, Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement the reports of their experts D. Paul Regan and Erich Seamon. A. WITNESS LIST

Plaintiffs seek to amend their witness list to include Lucas Tobin, the ADA Program Coordinator for the City's Recreation and Parks Department, and five unidentified "custodian of records" witnesses. See Wallace Decl. Ex. A at 1-2, Dkt. 521. The City indicates that it does not object to the addition of these witnesses. See City's Opp. at 6, Dkt. 534. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add these witnesses is GRANTED. B. EXHIBIT LIST

As indicated, Plaintiffs seek to amend their exhibit list to include documents purportedly identified as the result of discovery directed to the City's amendment to its exhibit list. See Wallace Decl. Ex. A. Plaintiffs' proposed amendment includes over three hundred exhibits. In response, the City objects to seven exhibits containing an unidentified number of photographs purportedly taken by class members showing barriers that they have encountered throughout the City. Plaintiffs assert that these exhibits are necessary to reflect current conditions in the City. The City objects on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to indicate why such photographic evidence was not available to Plaintiffs prior to the originally scheduled trial date, or how these exhibits are necessitated by the City's amended exhibit list. The Court agrees. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add these exhibits (specifically, Exhibits 4024, 4025, 4044, 4070, 4071, 4101, and 4102) is DENIED.
-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Moreover, the City makes several general, blanket objections to categories of exhibits on various evidentiary grounds, including hearsay and the fact that some exhibits are "batch exhibits" containing many pages. However, the City fails to specifically identify to which of the remaining additional exhibits such objections are made. For that reason, the objections are overruled. Moreover, the admissibility of each item will depend on the circumstances surrounding its offer into evidence. Accordingly, these objections are denied without prejudice to renewal of specific objections when and if the evidence is offered. As such, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add the remaining proposed exhibits is GRANTED. C. EXPERT REPORTS

Mr. Regan is Plaintiffs' financial expert who will testify at trial regarding the City's financial condition, while Mr. Seamon is Plaintiffs' Geographic Information Systems expert who has created maps reflecting the City's curb ramps based on the City's Curb Ramp Information System ("CRIS") database. Plaintiffs argue that supplementation of Mr. Regan and Mr. Seamon's expert reports is necessary in view of the new financial information provided by the City in its updated exhibit list, as well as the City's updates to its CRIS database. The City objects to the supplementation of Mr. Regan's report on the ground that Plaintiffs have not provided his proposed supplemental report to the City, precluding it from evaluating the new material and conducting an additional deposition of Mr. Regan, if necessary. City's Opp. at 6. The City does not object to Plaintiffs supplementing Mr. Seamon's report, which it has received from Plaintiffs, provided that Plaintiffs are required to produce Mr. Seamon's electronic files supporting his updated opinions and make Mr. Seamon available for deposition before he testifies at trial. As Plaintiffs failed to disclose Mr. Regan's proposed supplemental report to the City, Plaintiffs' request for leave to supplement his expert report is DENIED. Plaintiffs' request to supplement Mr. Seamon's expert report is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall provide to the City Mr. Seamon's electronic files by no later than 7:00 p.m. on April 1, 2011, and shall make Mr. Seamon available for deposition. However, the parties are advised that there will be no change
-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to the trial date, trial schedule, or the trial time allotted in this case, and they are responsible for completing Mr. Seamon's deposition, if necessary, in time for him to testify at trial. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend its exhibit list to include Exhibits 4024,

4025, 4044, 4070, 4071, 4101, and 4102 is DENIED; Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend with respect to the remaining exhibits identified in their motion is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their witness list to include Lucas Tobin

and five unidentified "custodian of records" witnesses is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement the expert report of Mr. Regan is

DENIED, and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement the expert report of Mr. Seamon is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall provide to the City Mr. Seamon's electronic files by no later than 7:00 p.m. on April 1, 2011, and shall make Mr. Seamon available for deposition in time for him to testify at trial. This order terminates Docket 523. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2011 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-4-