Crandall v. Starbucks Corporation et al

Filing 73

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 68 Discovery Dispute re Expert Site Inspection. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
CRAIG CRANDALL,

8

Plaintiff,

9

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
EXPERT SITE INSPECTION

v.

10

Re: Dkt. No. 68

Defendant.

12

The Court having considered the arguments of the parties as reflected in the joint

13
14

Case No.17-cv-03680-VKD

submission and as stated during the hearing on May 7, 2019, orders as follows:
Plaintiff Craig Crandall may have his expert conduct a further inspection of the Starbucks

15
16

store that is the subject of this action. The inspection will be limited to the alleged violations

17

stated in the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 48), and will be further limited to any changes to

18

the store made in or after February 2019 that relate to those alleged violations. Counsel shall

19

confer promptly to ensure that the further inspection is conducted at the earliest opportunity. Mr.

20

Crandall’s counsel may accompany the expert on the inspection. If Mr. Crandall’s expert

21

anticipates offering expert testimony about the alleged violations based on his further inspection of

22

the store, he must serve a supplemental expert report on defendant Starbucks no later than seven

23

days following completion of the further inspection.1 Starbucks indicates that it may seek leave of

24

Court to serve a rebuttal to such supplemental expert report. If, after conferring, the parties agree

25

that such leave is warranted, they may file a stipulation to that effect; if they disagree, they may

26
27
28

1

If the supplemental expert report covers matters that Starbucks contends should have been
included in the initial expert report, Starbucks may object to proposed expert testimony on that
ground by filing a pretrial motion in limine.

1
2
3

submit the question to the Court for resolution using the Court’s discovery dispute procedures.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 7, 2019

4
5
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2