Cueto v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 16 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Expert Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 1/4/12. (kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING GROUP, INC., )
)
OSG SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., ASC
)
LEASING VI, INC., and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, in personam, and M/T OVERSEAS )
BOSTON, her engines, tackle, apparel,
)
)
furniture, and appurtenances, in rem,
)
)
Defendants.
)

18

I.

RIMANDO CUETO,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Civil No. 10cv1243 LAB (NLS)
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
[Docket No.16]

INTRODUCTION

19

In this maritime personal injury action, Plaintiff Rimando Cueto (“Plaintiff’) claims that he was

20

injured while employed as a seaman by defendant OSG Ship Management, Inc., (“OSG”) aboard an oil

21

tanker owned by defendant ASC Leasing VI, Inc., (“ASC”, collectively “Defendants”). On December

22

30, 2011, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Expert Report of Edward

23

L. Bennett [Docket No. 16.] Defendants seek permission to supplement the expert report of Edward

24

Bennet, a vocational rehabilitation expert. On January 3, 3012, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit in Opposition

25

to the Ex Parte Motion. [Docket No. 18.] The supplemental report seeks to add a new position,

26

Dynamic Positioning Officer, for which Defendants claim Plaintiff is qualified and a new theory as to

27

Plaintiff’s expected work life expectancy. For the following reasons, the Ex Parte Motion is Denied.

28

//
1

10cv1243 LAB (NLS)

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

A.

Legal Standard

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 governs the disclosure of expert testimony. Rule 26(a)(2)

4

provides that a party must disclose to other parties “the identity of all expert witnesses who may be used

5

at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Rule 26

6

adds:

7

9

Unless as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be
accompanied by a written report-- prepared and signed by the witness . . . . The report
must contain a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis
and reasons for them.

10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). With respect to the timing of expert disclosures, Rule 26(a)(2)(c) provides:

11

“A party must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” Rule

12

26(e)(2) governs the supplementation of expert reports. It provides, in pertinent part:

8

13
For an expert whose report must be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the party’s duty to
supplement extends both to information included in the report and to information given
during the expert’s deposition. Any additions or changes to this information must be
disclosed by the time the party’s pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.

14
15
16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2).

17
18

Parties who run afoul of Rule 26 may face sanctions as specified in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37, which provides in relevant part:

19
If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or
(e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a
motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is
harmless.

20
21
22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The exclusion sanction is “self-executing” and “automatic.” Yeti by Molly Ltd.

23

v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (referencing the Advisory Committee’s

24

Notes to Rule 37(c)(1) (1993 Amendments)). However, “[t]wo express exceptions ameliorate the

25

harshness of Rule 37(c)(1): The information may be introduced if the party can prove that its failure to

26

disclose the required information is substantially justified or harmless.” Id. at 106-07 (“Implicit in Rule

27

//

28

//
2

10cv1243 LAB (NLS)

1

37(c)(1) is that the burden is on the party facing sanctions to prove harmlessness.”) 1

2

B.

3

On November 10, 2010, the Court conducted a Case Management Conference and issued a

4

The Scheduling Order

Scheduling Order. The relevant dates from the scheduling order are:

5

1.

June 10, 2011

Deadline to exchange expert reports

6

2.

June 27, 2011

Deadline to supplement expert reports

7

3.

July 29, 2011

Close of Expert Discovery

8

4.

January 2, 2012

Deadline to Lodge Pre-trial Order

9

5.

January 9, 2012

Pretrial Conference

10
11

On June 10, 2011, the parties timely exchanged expert witness reports, including the expert
report of Edward L Bennett. (Affidavit in Opposition at 3.)

12

C.

13

Defendants first argue that the supplemental report is required under Rule 26 (e). “Although

The Supplementation Is Not Proper Under Rule 26(e)

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) requires a party to ‘supplement or correct’ a disclosure upon information later

15

acquired, that provision does not give license to sandbag one’s opponent with claims and issues which

16

should have been included in the expert witness’ report. . ..” Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 249

17

F.R.D. 625, 639 (D. Haw. 2008) quoting Beller ex rel. Beller v. United States, 221 F.R.D. 689, 695

18

(D.N.M. 2003) (citation omitted). Similarly, a "party may not rely on Rule 26(e)(1) as a way to remedy

19

a deficient expert report or as a means of getting in, in effect, a brand new report." Medtronic Vascular,

20

Inc. v. Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 2008 WL 4601038 at *1 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 15, 2008).

21

Supplementation "does not cover failures of omission because the expert did an inadequate or

22

incomplete preparation. To construe supplementation to apply whenever a party wants to bolster or

23

submit additional expert opinions would reek havoc in docket control and amount to unlimited expert

24

opinion preparation." Akeva LLC v. Mizuno Corp., 212 F.R.D. 306, 310 (M.D.N.C.2002) (citations

25

omitted.).

26
27
28

1

Although there is no motion before the court to strike the expert report, the legal standards for
striking a supplemental report are relevant to the issue of whether the supplementation should be
allowed.
3

10cv1243 LAB (NLS)

1

Defendants argue that the supplementation is proper because, prior to receiving Plaintiff’s

2

expert reports, they were unaware that: 1) Plaintiff was unwilling to accept a job that required him to

3

reside in the United States; 2) the position of Dynamic Positioning Officer existed; and 3) that Plaintiff

4

would claim to be able to work until age 65. (Mot at 5-6). Defendants do not identify any information

5

that was not available to them during the time allowed by the Scheduling Order for the submission of

6

supplemental reports. Defendants also do not explain why they could not have met the June 27, 2011

7

deadline to supplement the expert report. Finally, Defendants also do not explain why they did not seek

8

to extend the deadline until almost the eve of the Pretrial conference.

9

In short, Defendants seek to add information and theories that should have been either included

10

in the original report or in a timely submitted supplemental report. Thus, the supplementation is neither

11

required nor permitted by Rule 26(e). See Reid v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. 205 F.R.D. 655, 661

12

(N.D. Ga. 2001)(“ In short, Rule 26 imposes a duty on Plaintiffs; it grants them no right to produce

13

information in a belated fashion.”)

14
15
16

D.

The Supplemental Report is Neither Substantially Justified Nor Harmless
1.

The Supplemental Report is Not Substantially Justified

Defendants claim that the failure to timely supplement is justified because their expert was

17

unaware of Plaintiff’s desire not to reside in the United States and Plaintiff’s claimed work life

18

expectancy. Defendants, and their expert, learned of these facts in June of 2011 when Plaintiff served

19

them with his expert reports. Thus, these facts do not justify the failure to submit the supplemental

20

report until December of 2011. Similarly, Mr. Bennett’s lack of knowledge of the position of Dynamic

21

Positioning Officer in June does not justify the failure to supplement until December.

22

Defendants also claim that they were “mislead” into thinking they could supplement Mr.

23

Bennett’s report any time up to fifteen days after Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Levine, issued a

24

letter stating that Plaintiff had reached maximum cure, or specified permanent restrictions on the

25

Plaintiff. (Tamulski Dec. ¶ 9.) According to Defendants, Dr. Levine has not yet recommended

26

permanent restrictions or stated that Plaintiff has reached maximum cure, and, therefore, the

27

supplemental report is timely. (Mot at 3.) Defendants have submitted a series of emails that appear to

28

support the argument that a private agreement was reached. (Tamulski Declaration, Exhibit C). Plaintiff
4

10cv1243 LAB (NLS)

1

does not address the alleged agreement. Civil Local Rule 7.2, however specifically addresses

2

stipulations among the parties:

3

a.

Except as otherwise provided, stipulations must be recognized as binding on the
court only when approved by the judge.

b.

Any stipulation for which court approval is sought must be filed as a “joint
motion.” Parties are not required to obtain a hearing date for the motion, and are
not required to file a separate points and authorities or declaration unless required
by the nature of the motion or requested by the assigned judicial officer.

c.

Upon the filing of a joint motion, the filing party must also submit a proposed
order to the assigned judicial officer. The proposed order must be a document
separate from the joint motion.

4
5
6
7
8
9

Civ. L.R. 7.2. Here, the parties did not seek court approval, did not file a joint motion, and did not

10

submit a proposed order. Thus, the agreement among the parties is not binding on the court. Dos

11

Amigos Distributors, Inc. v. Cadbury Bebidas, S.A. de C.V., 2008 WL 3844062 at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Aug

12

14, 2008)(overruling objection to Magistrate Judge’s order striking supplemental expert report where

13

parties extended deadline without court approval.)

14
15

2.

The Supplemental Report is Not Harmless

Defendants’ final argument is that the supplemental report should be allowed because it will not

16

prejudice Plaintiff. Defendants claim that the supplemental report “does not add any new theories of

17

defense” (Mot at 6.) Plaintiff disagrees, pointing out that Defendants are attempting to add two new

18

theories: 1) as to how Plaintiff’s work life expectancy might be affected if the evidence were to show

19

that he had a pre-existing degenerative disc disease; and 2) as to Plaintiff’s employability as a Dynamic

20

Positioning Officer. The Court agrees that Defendants is attempting to add at least one wholly new

21

theory, rendering the addition not harmless.2

22

Defendants next argue that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced because they informed Plaintiff of

23

their desire to supplement the report in late September 2011. (Mot at 6.) At the same time, Plaintiff

24

informed Defendants that he would object to the report. Notice two months after the deadline of a desire

25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are attempting to add more than just a supplemental report, that
they are seeking to add new experts and new reports. Plaintiff points out that he has stated his intention
to file motions in limine seeking to exclude these new witnesses. The Court expresses no opinion as to
any future motions that might be filed. Similarly, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether
supplementation might be justified in response to a future report from Plaintiff’s treating physician.
5

10cv1243 LAB (NLS)

1

to untimely supplement does not alleviate any prejudice.

2

Defendants also argue that there is no prejudice because the trial date has not been set in this

3

case. While no trial date has been set, the Pretrial Conference is set for January 9, 2012, a mere five

4

court days after Defendants filed this motion. Moreover, the motion was filed six months after the

5

deadline to supplement had passed and five months after the close of expert discovery.

6

Finally, Defendants argue that they will make Mr. Bennett available for deposition and pay the

7

fees for both Mr. Bennett and the court reporter. While this might alleviate some of the prejudice, it

8

does not eliminate it. As Plaintiff argues, his experts have already given their complete opinions and

9

depositions without the benefit of the supplemental report. If the supplemental report were allowed,

10

Plaintiff would need the chance to supplement his own expert reports, which might also lead to the need

11

to for further depositions. Accordingly, the late submission of the supplemental report cannot be found

12

harmless.

13

III.

14
15
16

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and good cause not appearing, It Is Hereby Ordered that the Ex Parte

Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Expert Witness Report is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

DATED: January 4, 2012

19
20
21

Hon. Nita L. Stormes
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

10cv1243 LAB (NLS)