Morton & Bassett, LLC-V-Organic Spices Inc
Filing
108
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFFS 101 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DAUBERT MOTION. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MORTON & BASSETT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
v.
ORGANIC SPICES, INC.,
Case No. 15-cv-01849-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
DAUBERT MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 101
Defendant.
On May 23, 2017, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Morton Bassett, L.P. (“Morton”)
13
filed a request for leave to file a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony and report of Michael
14
Rappeport, the expert of Defendant and Counterclaimant Organic Spices, Inc. (“Spicely”). Dkt.
15
No. 101. Morton also requested that the Court set June 2, 2017 as Spicely’s deadline to oppose
16
the proposed Daubert motion, and hear arguments regarding the motion at the pretrial conference
17
on June 13, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. Id. at 4. Along with its request for leave to file, Morton has filed its
18
proposed Daubert motion, Dkt. No. 101-2, a declaration by counsel, Dkt. Nos. 101-3 (“Weinberg
19
Decl.”), and exhibits thereto, Dkt. No. 101-4 (“Exs. A–C”).
20
This Court’s standing order limits motions in limine to five pages. See Civil Pretrial &
21
Trial Standing Order ¶ 24. However, Morton’s proposed Daubert motion is six pages. Morton’s
22
request to file this overlong document is denied.
23
At this stage of the proceedings, the Court requires a party to seek prior approval before
24
filing a Daubert motion. See id. (“Motions in limine cannot be used to . . . raise Daubert
25
challenges unless the Court has specifically granted prior approval.”). The proposed Daubert
26
motion seeks to exclude the report and expert testimony of Mr. Rappeport. However, Mr.
27
Rappeport’s report is dated May 31, 2016. Weinberg Decl., Ex. B at 6. And Morton deposed Mr.
28
Rappeport on June 10, 2016. Id., Ex. C. Neither Morton’s request nor its counsel’s declaration
1
2
explains why it waited nearly a year to file the proposed Daubert motion.
Finally, Morton’s request as to the briefing schedule and hearing were unnecessary. As
3
ordered at the further case management conference on May 23, 2017, oppositions to the motions
4
in limine must all be filed by June 2, 2017. See Dkt. No. 107 (minute entry of proceedings). And
5
all motions in limine will be heard at the pretrial conference on June 13, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. See
6
Civil Pretrial & Trial Standing Order ¶ 26.
7
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Morton’s request for leave to file the
8
proposed Daubert motion. The Court SETS a filing deadline of May 25, 2017 for any renewed
9
request to file a proposed Daubert motion relating to the testimony and report of Mr. Rappeport.
The proposed Daubert motion shall not exceed five pages. And any renewed request to file a
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Daubert motion must explain why Morton had good cause to wait nearly a year before challenging
12
Mr. Rappeport’s report and expert testimony. If such a request is ultimately granted, the Daubert
13
motion in question will be subject to the existing opposition deadline and hearing date for all
14
motions in limine.
15
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/24/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?