Lawman v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 205

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re 140 Plaintiff's Ninth Motion in Limine.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

GARY RICHARD LAWMAN,

Case No. 15-cv-01202-DMR

Plaintiff,
7
v.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S NINTH
MOTION IN LIMINE

8
9
10

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 140

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion in limine no. 9 regarding defense expert Jeffrey

12

A. Martin’s supplemental report and opinions, and Defendants’ opposition thereto. [Docket Nos.

13

140, 170.] This matter is suitable for decision without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

14

The court allowed Plaintiff to submit an untimely report by expert David Dusenbury. The

15

court subsequently permitted Plaintiff to serve a supplemental Dusenbury report because

16

Defendants were late in producing certain documents relevant to Dusenbury’s opinions. [Docket

17

No. 106.] The court did not authorize multiple supplemental reports, but Dusenbury nevertheless

18

supplemented his report three times. Martin filed a supplemental rebuttal report on May 12, 2016

19

report, which was timely only as to Dusenbury’s May 2, 2016 supplemental report.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The court concludes that both parties contributed to the messy manner in which these
expert reports were developed. The court will not strike Martin’s supplemental report and
opinions. Plaintiff may depose Martin solely on the subject of his May 12, 2016 supplemental
report. The parties shall equally share the costs of the deposition, as well as Martin’s expert fees.
The parties shall work together to schedule this deposition promptly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge