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

Filing 546

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 543 Motion for leave to file (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2011)

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

Doc. 546

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 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION OR EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORTS Dkt. 543

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 File Motion to Compel Immediate Production or Exclude Defendants' Supplemental Expert Reports ("Motion for Leave"), filed on April 4, 2011. Dkt. 543. By their proposed motion, Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to produce their supplemental expert reports, which Defendants have not yet produced, regarding additional joint site inspections that the parties conducted during the period that discovery was reopened following the January 25, 2011 pretrial conference. Plaintiffs indicate that those additional site inspections were completed on March 24, 2011. See Johnson Decl. ¶ 15, Dkt. 545. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave is GRANTED. The Court accepts for filing Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Dkt. 544). Plaintiffs raise legitimate concerns regarding Defendants' failure to produce their supplemental expert reports to date. As such, the Court is inclined to require Defendants to produce their supplemental expert reports by no later than 12:00 p.m. on April 7, 2011, which is two weeks after completion of the site inspections. Therefore, by 5:00 p.m. on April 5, 2011, Defendants shall file either: (1)

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

a responsive brief, not to exceed five (5) pages, addressing Plaintiffs' concerns and the Court's inclination, should the City intend to rely on the supplemental expert reports at trial; or (2) a statement indicating that the City does not intend to rely on the supplemental expert reports at trial. Defendants' failure to file a timely response will be construed as a representation that Defendants do not intend to rely on the supplemental expert reports at trial. This Order terminates Docket 543. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 5, 2011 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-2-