Steshenko v. McKay et al
Filing
901
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL, DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/26/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,
Case No. 09-cv-05543-RS
Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
12
13
THOMAS MCKAY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
TO RULING ON MOTION TO
COMPEL, DENYING MOTION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL
14
15
16
Under the modified order of the magistrate judge, plaintiff must appear for up to three
17
hours of deposition, in the event he intends to offer any testimony at trial as an expert witness.
18
That ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. As such, there is no basis to overturn
19
it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d
20
1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Plaintiffs’ original objection to appearing for the deposition was based solely on his
22
contention that he was entitled to compensation for doing so, at an hourly rate comparable to those
23
typically charged by retained experts. Plaintiff relies on Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of
24
Civil Procedure, which provides: “[u]nless manifest injustice would result . . . the court shall
25
require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in
26
27
28
responding to discovery . . . .” The purpose of that rule “is to avoid the unfairness of requiring one
party to provide expensive discovery for another party’s benefit without reimbursement.” United
States v. City of Twin Falls, Idaho, 806 F.2d 862, 879 (9th Cir. 1986). There is no such purpose to
1
be served where, as here, the expert is the party, and is therefore charging no fee to the party who
2
designated him that ought, in fairness, be shifted to the side seeking the deposition. Additionally,
3
it is highly questionable whether Rule 26(b)(4) applies to any witness, party or otherwise, who is
4
not offering expert testimony developed “in anticipation of litigation or for trial,” but who instead
5
claims his value as an expert witness stems from his being “an actor or viewer with respect to
6
7
8
9
10
transactions or occurrences that are part of the subject matter of the lawsuit.” Congrove v. St.
Louis S. F. Ry. Co., 77 F.R.D. 503, 504 (W.D. Mo. 1978). To the extent plaintiff may have any
relevant expert testimony to offer here, it would appear to fall primarily or exclusively into the
latter category.1 Accordingly, the decision that plaintiff’s deposition must go forward without
payment of a fee is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. In short, it is plaintiff’s choice
either to make himself available for the limited deposition contemplated or withdraw his request to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
offer expert testimony, at which point no deposition would be required.
12
Plaintiff’s new objection is that requiring him to prepare and sit for deposition at this
13
14
15
juncture will unfairly burden his trial preparation. In light of the three hour limit, and the time
remaining before trial, this argument is not persuasive. For the same reason, plaintiff’s motion to
continue the trial is denied.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: November 26, 2014
20
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
Although plaintiff and other individual parties were permitted to designate themselves as expert
witnesses in this matter, it remains quite dubious that all or any of them in fact have testimony to
offer that they cannot present as percipient witnesses, but which they are qualified to present if
characterized as expert witnesses. The present controversy, therefore, may have very little bearing
on what would be admissible at trial in any event.
28
CASE NO.
2
09-cv-05543-RS
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?