Zertuche v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 74

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 64 Motion for Extension of Time for Expert Disclosure. Telephone Conference set for Monday, 8/26/2013 at 1:30pm and will be held via CourtCall. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

HOSETTA ZERTUCHE,
11

Plaintiff,
Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE

vs.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, ET AL.,

14

Case No.: 11-cv-3691 YGR

Defendants.

15

Plaintiff Hosetta Zertuche (“Zertuche”) brings this Motion to Extend Time For Disclosure of

16
17

Her Treating Psychiatrist as Her Non-Retained Expert. (Dkt. No. 64.) Defendant James Gleason

18

(“Gleason”) opposes the motion. Zertuche seeks relief from her failure to disclose timely her

19

treating psychiatrist as an expert in this matter based upon her counsel’s excusable neglect.
Having carefully considered the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth below, the

20
21

Court hereby GRANTS the Motion.

22

I.

23

BACKGROUND
This action was assigned previously to the Honorable Judge Edward J. Davila, who issued a

24

case management order on December 12, 2011. (Dkt. No. 13.) That order imposed a number of

25

deadlines, including a July 6, 2012 date for designation of experts, an August 17, 2012 date for close

26

of expert discovery, and an August 31, 2012 date for filing dispositive motions.

27

Zertuche was deposed first on February 13, 2012. In her Initial Disclosures served on April

28

11, 2012, Zertuche named her longstanding treating psychiatrist, Sandra Zetner, M.D., as a witness

1

on the subject of her emotional distress damages. Zertuche’s allegations in this case are that she was

2

subjected to retaliation on account of her exercise of her free speech rights, and that her adverse

3

treatment by Gleason resulted in aggravation of her anxiety disorder to the point that she took a

4

medical leave of absence for about two and a half months. Zertuche offers that Dr. Zetner treated her

5

anxiety disorder before, during, and after the leave of absence, and hence is a material witness on

6

how her emotional condition deteriorated when she took the leave of absence.

7

Zertuche was deposed in two additional sessions on June 7 and 8, 2012. Thereafter

8

depositions were taken of Gleason and the other individually named defendants (Kimberly Maruffi,

9

Sandra Eovino) later in June and July 2012.

10

Zertuche’s counsel, Mr. Adams, avers that he inadvertently overlooked the deadline of July 6,

Northern District of California

2012 in the flurry of discovery around this time, and as Defendants did not disclose any experts, did

12
United States District Court

11

not realize his oversight until August 2, 2012, when he was meeting and conferring with Defendants’

13

(prior) lead counsel, Mr. Coelho. (Declaration of Michael E. Adams, Dkt. No. 65, at ¶ 6.) Adams

14

further avers that, in the course of their conversation, Coelho suggested that it would make sense to

15

wait on bringing any motion for relief from the expert disclosure deadline until after the court

16

decided the motion for summary judgment that Coelho intended to file by August 31, 2012. (Id.)

17

According to Adams, the parties agreed that including a note in their statement would suffice to

18

avoid any prejudice due to the passage of time before bringing the motion. (Id.)

19

Coelho, for his part, has submitted a declaration stating that he did not agree to a late

20

designation, and told Adams that he would have to obtain a court order. (Declaration of Robert M.

21

Coelho, Dkt. No. 70, at ¶¶ 4-5.) Coelho states that he never proposed or suggested that Zertuche

22

should wait to seek relief until after the Court ruled on the summary judgment motion. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 7,

23

8.) To the contrary, Coelho objected that Zertuche’s counsel had served initial disclosures late, and

24

had not been diligent in complying with discovery and other deadlines in the case. (Id. at ¶5.)

25

The parties filed their Joint Preliminary Pretrial Memorandum on August 3, 2012. (Dkt. No.

26

16.) In that Memorandum, Plaintiff noted that she anticipated filing a motion for relief from her

27

failure to designate Dr. Zetner as an expert by the July 6, 2012 deadline. (Id. at 4.) That same day,

28

2

1

Judge Davila filed his Order of Recusal. (Dkt. No. 17.) The preliminary pretrial conference was

2

vacated, but all other dates were maintained.

3

Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment by the August 31, 2012 deadline, and

4

the Court heard argument on the motion on October 9, 2012. In the meantime, Zertuche noted the

5

expert designation issue in two additional joint case management statements filed on September 10,

6

2012, and January 8, 2013.

7

The Court held a case management conference on January 14, 2013. Mr. Adams noted on the

8

record that there were still outstanding issues concerning the expert disclosure date and his desire to

9

bring a motion to designate Dr. Zetner. The Court heard argument from Mr. Adams and from

had raised the issue many times, he had still not made a motion. Mr. Adams pointed out that he had

12
Northern District of California

Defendants’ now-lead counsel Mr. Winchester. Mr. Winchester objected that, although Mr. Adams

11

United States District Court

10

discussed the timing with Mr. Winchester’s predecessor (Mr. Coelho) and that the parties had agreed

13

to focus on the summary judgment motion before spending time or energy on the expert designation

14

motion. Having reviewed the proceedings, the Court did indicate at the case management conference

15

that it would address the expert designation issue in the context of the summary judgment.

16

The Court issued its order on the summary judgment motion on April 17, 2013. (Dkt. No.

17

52.) However, the Court did not address the expert designation issue in that order. The parties then

18

participated in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Vadas on April 24, with follow up

19

conferences on May 14, May 28, and June 3. Also on June 3, 2013, the Court issued an order to

20

show cause directing the parties to file an updated case management statement and to appear for a

21

case management conference on June 17, 2013. It was at that conference that the Court directed

22

Plaintiff to file a regular noticed motion.
APPLICABLE STANDARD

23

II.

24

Experts must be disclosed pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2). Rule 26(a)(2) provides that a party

25

must identify any expert witness it intends to use at trial. If the expert is retained for the purposes of

26

testifying, a report must be disclosed. Rule 26 (a)(2)(B). Otherwise, the disclosure simply needs to

27

state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, including a summary of facts and

28

opinions. Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Unless otherwise ordered, expert disclosures must occur at least 90 days
3

1

before the date set for trial, or at least 30 days in the case of experts offered solely for rebuttal. Rule

2

26(a)(2)(D).

3

If a scheduling order has not been modified and a party fails to disclose information required

4

by Rule 26 consistent with the deadlines imposed by that scheduling order, Rule 37 provides for

5

sanctions.1 Rule 37 states, in pertinent part:

6
7
8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule
26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply
evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was
substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the
court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard:
(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
caused by the failure;
(B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and
(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).
FRCP 37(c)(1). Here, having failed to meet the disclosure deadline in the Court’s scheduling order,
Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that her failure to comply with that deadline is “substantially
justified” or “harmless.” See Yeti By Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoors, Inc., 259 F. 3rd 1101, 1106
(9th Cir. 2001); see also Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005)
(“Disruption to the schedule of the court and other parties is not harmless,” even if “the ultimate trial
date was still months away.”).
The exclusionary sanction under Rule 37(c) has been described as “self-executing” and
“automatic.” See Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, Advisory Committee's
Note (1993)). However, Rule 37 requires a court to consider the harm, if any, caused by the failure
to comply before imposing such a sanction, and provides for alternative, lesser sanctions “instead of”
exclusion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1); see Pineda v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 280 F.R.D. 517, 520
(N.D. Cal. 2012)(citing FRCP 37 Advisory Committee’s Note (1993): “Limiting the automatic
sanction to violations ‘without substantial justification’ coupled with the exception for violations that
are ‘harmless,’ is needed to avoid unduly harsh penalties in a variety of situations.”). Moreover,

27
1

28

In her moving papers, Zertuche argued that different standards applied. However, she
concedes on reply that the applicable standard here is Rule 37(c). (Reply Br. at 2:1-3 and n. 1.)
4

1

even when a party cannot demonstrate that the failure to designate an expert timely was substantially

2

justified or harmless, a court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to impose lesser sanctions than

3

complete exclusion. FRCP 37(c)(1); see Pineda, 280 F.R.D. at 523 (declining to exclude all experts,

4

but instead allowing certain experts and an opportunity to amend expert disclosures, plus monetary

5

sanctions).

discovery has long been closed and this matter is set for trial October 21, 2013. A further settlement

8

conference is set for August 14, 2013. As of the filing of the motion Zertuche had not produced

9

medical records or made a definite offer to produce Dr. Zetner for deposition in the window of time

10

between the hearing on this motion and the time for pre-trial preparation.2 And, Gleason argues, he

11

will need to determine whether to designate his own mental health expert and have Zertuche

12
Northern District of California

Gleason argues that Zertuche’s untimely disclosure is not harmless and prejudices him, since

7

United States District Court

6

examined in that time period as well.

13

Zertuche contends that her failure to designate Dr. Zetner timely is, as whole, substantially

14

justified and harmless. Her conduct was substantially justified because, although she missed the

15

deadline to designate Dr. Zetner, it occurred in the midst of a flurry of discovery activity, and she

16

conferred with Gleason’s counsel shortly thereafter about curing the error. Zertuche argues that she

17

acted reasonably in deferring the motion until now, since she had brought the error to the Court’s

18

attention on several occasions, and had argued the merits of the motion at the January 2013 case

19

management conference, when she was told that the Court would take the matter under submission

20

and issue a decision. She further argues that the failure to designate was harmless since there are

21

more than two months to trial, she has now produced the treatment records, and there will be ample

22

opportunity for Gleason to depose Dr. Zetner and to designate his own expert, if necessary.

23

Zertuche’s failure to comply with the deadline was not justified. She offers no reasonable

24

excuse for her failure to designate her expert prior to the deadline, merely indicating a “flurry” of

25

other deadlines at the time. Likewise, she has not established that her failure to disclose her expert

26
27
2

28

In connection with her reply, Zertuche served copies of her treatment records with Dr.
Zetner. (Reply Declaration of Michael E. Adams, ¶3.)
5

1

by the deadline is harmless. Timely disclosure would have meant that her expert was disclosed over

2

a year ago, not just within a few months of trial.
However, the Court finds that, under the particular factual circumstances here, complete

3
4

exclusion of Zertuche’s expert would be an unduly harsh sanction. Zertuche raised the error within a

5

month of the deadline stated in Judge Davila’s scheduling order. She raised it again with this Court

6

more than six months ago, at which time the parties were given an opportunity to argue the merits,

7

and before any trial date was set. In light of the Court's statements at the case management

8

conference, she reasonably believed that the Court would address the issue in the context of the

9

summary judgment order. It did not.
In light of the particular circumstances of this case, including the changes in trial judges and

10

Northern District of California

the state of judicial emergency which resulted in delays in rulings, and balancing the various equities

12
United States District Court

11

involved, the Court GRANTS THE MOTION as follows:
(1)

13

Plaintiff may designate Dr. Zetner as an expert and shall serve an expert designation

14

stating the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, including a summary of facts and

15

opinions, consistent with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) no later than August 19, 2013.
(2)

16
17

Plaintiff shall make Dr. Zetner available for deposition at a time mutually agreeable to

the parties but no later than September 9, 2013 and shall pay for the costs of the deposition.

18

(3)

Gleason shall be afforded the opportunity to designate a rebuttal expert no later than

19

September 3, 2013.
The Court also set this case for a telephonic case management conference at 1:30 p.m.

20
21

on August 26, 2013. The parties are advised that the trial date of October 21, 2013 will be continued

22

into November 2013. The parties shall meet and confer and determine whether any modifications to

23

the trial deadlines are necessitated as a result of this order and be prepared to discuss those issues at

24

the case management conference. The parties shall coordinate with the Court's courtroom deputy to

25

access CourtCall.

26

///

27

///

28

///
6

1

This order terminates Docket No. 64.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated:

August 12, 2013
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7