Campbell et al v. City of Milpitas et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Extend Deadlines for Expert Disclosure. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/22/2014. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION CASE NO. 5:13-cv-03817 EJD SHANNON CAMPBELL, et. al., 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE Plaintiff(s), For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 v. CITY OF MILPITAS, et. al., [Docket Item No(s). 24] 14 Defendant(s). 15 / 16 Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the Deadlines for Expert 17 Disclosure. See Docket Item No. 24. Plaintiffs primarily seek to retroactively extend the initial 18 deadline for designation of retained experts and the corresponding disclosure of those experts’ 19 reports, which in turn may require an extension of other deadlines related to expert disclosure. 20 Defendants have filed written opposition to this Motion. See Docket Item No. 33. 21 Having carefully considered this matter, the court has determined that Plaintiffs’ stated 22 reasons for their failure to comply with the deadline do not constitute substantial justification. See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); see also Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 24 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). Indeed, the fact depositions which had not occurred before the deadline were 25 not critical to an expert’s opinion under the circumstances. In addition, Plaintiffs notably did not 26 raise this issue in the parties’ joint statement prepared in anticipation of a pretrial conference - filed 27 only three days prior to the expert disclosure deadline - even though they must have been aware of it 28 by that time. 1 CASE NO. 5:13-cv-03817 EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE 1 Nor does the unavailability of their expert to prepare a report on the date it was due amount 2 to a justification that could be considered substantial under these circumstances. Plaintiffs should 3 have been in contact with their retained expert well in advance of the final date for submission of the 4 report, considering the deadline was set by the court six months prior. 5 Furthermore, the court has now issued a pretrial order with dates for a dispositive motion 6 hearing, pretrial submissions and conference, and jury trial, in reliance on the parties’ ability to 7 timely comply with the deadlines previously set. Extending the expert discovery deadlines as 8 requested by Plaintiff would not be harmless since doing so would also - inevitably - require an 9 extension of this pretrial schedule. See Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: July 22, 2014 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CASE NO. 5:13-cv-03817 EJD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE

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?