Carrera v. Thyssen Krupp Safway, Inc.

Filing 65

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd (1)granting in part and denying in part 61 defendant's Motion to Strike and (2) re-setting deadlines. 5/3/2011 hearing vacated. Defendant's rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, due by 5/20/2011. Expert discovery cutoff: 6/20/2011. Last date to hear Daubert motions: 8/9/2011, 10:00 AM. All other deadlines in 3/8/2011 Order (Docket 59 ) remain unchanged. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2011)

1
2

*E-FILED 04-28-2011*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13
14

No. C09-02672 HRL

BONIFACIO CARRERA,

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE; AND (2) RESETTING DEADLINES

Plaintiff,
v.
THYSSEN KRUPP SAFEWAY, INC. and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

[Re: Docket No. 61]

15
Defendant.
16
/
17
18

Defendant previously moved to strike plaintiff’s expert designations. Although

19

plaintiff’s prior disclosures were admittedly late and did not provide all the information

20

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, this court, in the exercise of its discretion, denied the motion and

21

gave plaintiff until March 21, 2011 in which to submit expert disclosures that complied with

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2). (See Docket No. 59).

23

Defendant now moves to strike plaintiff’s March 21 expert disclosures because (1) the

24

disclosure served by fax on March 21 did not contain a written report; (2) defendant received a

25

written report (by mail) on March 23; and (3) that written report merely is a verbatim copy of

26

the written report plaintiff served with his prior disclosure of Daniel Fleming—the only

27

difference being that another purported expert, James Flynn, has added his signature to it.

28

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. The matter is deemed suitable for

1

determination without oral argument, and the May 3, 2011 hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

2

Upon consideration of the moving papers, this court rules as follows:

3

Although defendant did not receive the written report until March 23, the court finds

4

that defendant was not seriously prejudiced by the two-day delay. Nevertheless, the court also

5

finds that plaintiff did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by having Flynn simply add his

6

signature to the report prepared by Fleming. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Moreover, at the

7

motion hearing on defendant’s prior motion to strike, plaintiff indicated to the court that he

8

intended to proceed only with Fleming. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to strike is granted as

9

to Flynn and denied as to Fleming.
Defendant shall have until May 20, 2011 to serve rebuttal expert reports, if any.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The expert discovery cutoff is extended to June 20, 2011.

12

The last date to hear motions re experts or expert disclosures (including any motions

13

under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)) is re-set for August

14

9, 2011, 10:00 a.m.

15
16

All other deadlines set in the court’s March 8, 2011 Order (Docket No. 59) remain
unchanged.

17
18

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 28, 2011

19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:09-cv-02672-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Frank Edward Schimaneck [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

3
4

Gerald Herbert Scher [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

5

Roger Arne Agen

6

Susan E. Foe

7

William John Armstrong

8

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3