Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber Research International, LLC et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 Joint Motion to Determine Discovery Dispute re: Rebuttal Expert Report of Rick Hoffman. As provided herein, the Court ORDERS: 1. Lines 37 through 125 of the rebuttal expert report of Rick Hoffman are stricken as improper rebuttal. 2. Any supplement of the initial expert report of Mr. Beaton by ORI, within the meaning of Rule 26(e), must be served at any appropriate time but no later than one week following the close of discovery. 3. Any rebuttal supplementation by FRI of the rebuttal expert report of Mr. Hoffman, within the meaning of Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii), must be served no later than two weeks following service of the Beaton supplemental report. 4. Any expert depositions of Messrs. Beaton and Hoffman, based upon satisfactory supplemental reports, must be completed no later than thirty days following service of the supplemental expert report of Mr. Beaton. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/17/15. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: 15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

OBESITY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIBER RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO
DETERMINE DISCOVERY
DISPUTE RE: WHETHER THE
HOFFMAN REBUTTAL REPORT
SHOULD BE STRICKEN
[ECF NO. 80]

17
18
19

BACKGROUND
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Determine a Discovery Dispute,

20

filed on December 16, 2015, regarding whether the rebuttal expert report of

21

Rick Hoffman, served by FRI, should be stricken as improper rebuttal to the

22

initial expert report of Neil J. Beaton, a damages expert, served by ORI.

23

(ECF No. 80). To say that this dispute is much ado about nothing is more

24

than apt. ORI’s Beaton report expresses no opinion whatsoever, stating only:

25

“FRI has produced no documents at this time that would allow an analysis or

26

calculation of profits.” (ECF No. 80-2 at 6 (throughout the Court will refer to
1
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

the pagination provided by ECF rather than the original pagination)).

2

Similarly, FRI’s Hoffman rebuttal report expresses no opinion stating: “At

3

this point, I do not have the financial and/or accounting information that is

4

typically gathered by damage experts in matters such as this. Specifically,

5

for the damage claims in this case, I need to have financial information from

6

[ORI].” (ECF No. 80-2 at 24).

7
8
9
10

Against this non-backdrop, the Court will express an opinion, as
follows:
LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) governs the disclosure requirements regarding

11

experts a party may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of

12

Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Retained experts must provide a written report

13

which “must contain . . . a complete statement of all opinions the witness will

14

express and the basis and reasons for them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i).

15

A disclosure under this subsection must be supplemented “if the party learns

16

that in some material respect the disclosure . . . is incomplete or incorrect,

17

and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made

18

known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed.

19

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(E) and 26(e)(1)(A). For retained experts, this

20

supplementation must occur prior to the time the party’s pretrial disclosures

21

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

22
23

ANALYSIS
It is a matter for the district court, upon proper motion, to decide

24

whether the expert non-opinion of Mr. Beaton is relevant, admissible and

25

qualified expert testimony on any issue in this case. Rules 703 – 705 of the

26

Federal Rules of Evidence clearly contemplate an expert witness actually
2
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

presenting an opinion. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Beaton will be permitted

2

to testify and present his expert non-opinion based upon nothing. Assuming

3

that his testimony is allowed, Mr. Beaton would be limited to the non-opinion

4

expressed in his report at trial. There would nothing for Mr. Hoffman to

5

rebut in testimony.

6

The reports at issue here suffer similarly. Mr. Beaton, having

7

expressed no opinion, presents nothing for Mr. Hoffman to rebut. Not

8

surprisingly, Mr. Hoffman’s rebuttal report also expresses no opinion.

9

Neither party, in the joint memorandum of points and authorities submitted

10

in connection with this joint motion, addresses the fact that neither report

11

expresses an opinion. (See ECF No. 80). To the extent that ORI is

12

suggesting that by expressing the same opinion as Mr. Beaton, that is, no

13

opinion, Mr. Hoffman’s rebuttal report is not proper rebuttal, that specious

14

argument will not be considered by the Court. If pressed, the Court would

15

strike both reports for failing to include an expert opinion under Rule

16

26(a)(2)(B)(i).

17

Mr. Hoffman, however, presented in his report the methodology he

18

would use to form an opinion if he was to do so. (ECF No. 80-2 at 25-28). Mr.

19

Beaton, in his report, did not explain the methodology he would use. (Id. at

20

6-7). ORI is correct that the portion of the Hoffman report providing a

21

methodology for how he would proceed to an opinion goes beyond what was

22

presented in the Beaton report. Mr. Beaton did not present any methodology

23

that he would use if he was to proceed to an opinion. Accordingly, and

24

probably meaninglessly, the portion of the rebuttal report of Mr. Hoffman,

25

pertaining to the various methodologies he might employ, from line 37 to line

26

125 is stricken.
3
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

In the event that ORI lawfully supplements the Beaton report, FRI will

2

have the opportunity to supplement the Hoffman report with proper rebuttal

3

information. In that regard, considering the seeming inability of counsel in

4

this case to cooperate with each other, the Court will restrict the time within

5

which these supplementations may occur. The Court intends to avoid the

6

necessity of having to extend the pretrial disclosure and other pretrial

7

deadlines due to a last minute supplement of the Beaton report.

8
9

Rule 26(e)(2) normally permits the parties to supplement written expert
reports, if incorrect or incomplete, no later than the day that pretrial

10

disclosures are due, currently June 20, 2016. Instead, under the

11

circumstances presented in this case, ORI may supplement the Beaton report

12

at any appropriate time but no later than one week following the close of

13

discovery. Discovery is set to close on February 29, 2016. FRI may

14

supplement the Hoffman rebuttal report no later than two weeks following

15

service of Beaton’s supplemental report. Any depositions of Messrs. Beaton

16

and Hoffman must be completed no later than thirty days following service of

17

the Beaton supplemental report.

18

CONCLUSION

19

The Court ORDERS that:

20

1. Lines 37 – 125 of the rebuttal expert report of Rick Hoffman are

21
22

stricken as improper rebuttal.
2. Any supplement of the initial expert report of Mr. Beaton by ORI,

23

within the meaning of Rule 26(e), must be served at any appropriate

24

time but no later than one week following the close of discovery.

25

3. Any rebuttal supplementation by FRI of the rebuttal expert report of

26

Mr. Hoffman, within the meaning of Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii), must be
4
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

served no later than two weeks following service of the Beaton

2

supplemental report.

3

4. Any expert depositions of Messrs. Beaton and Hoffman, based upon

4

satisfactory supplemental reports, must be completed no later than

5

thirty days following service of the supplemental expert report of Mr.

6

Beaton.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated: December 17, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14

.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD