Chavarria v. Management & Training Corporation et al
Filing
44
ORDER Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiff's 31 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 6/5/2017. (ag)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JESSE CHAVARRIA,
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00617-H-RBB
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
v.
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION, a corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
15
16
[Doc. No. 31]
Defendants.
17
On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff Jesse Chavarria (“Plaintiff”) filed an action in the
18
19
California Imperial County Superior Court against Defendant Management & Training
20
Corporation (“Defendant”). (Doc. No. 1-2 at 3.) On March 10, 2016, Defendant
21
removed the case to the Federal Court for the Southern District of California and filed an
22
answer. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude
23
Defendant’s expert witnesses. (Doc. No. 31.) Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s
24
motion on May 16, 2017. (Doc. No. 35.) Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s opposition
25
on May 26, 2017. (Doc. No. 39.) On June 5, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the
26
motion to strike. Attorneys Geniene B. Stillwell and Freda Tjoarman appeared on behalf
27
of Plaintiff. Attorney Serafin H. Tagarao appeared on behalf of Defendant.
28
///
1
3:16-cv-00617-H-RBB
1
Plaintiff moves to exclude Defendant’s three expert witnesses pursuant to Federal
2
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 because Defendant failed to comply with the disclosure
3
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, as well as the Court’s scheduling
4
order. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 9-10.) As part of their initial disclosures, Federal Rule of Civil
5
Procedure 26(2) requires parties to disclose any expert witnesses, along with an expert
6
report including the information detailed in Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i)-(vi). Parties are to make
7
these initial disclosures “at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” Fed. R.
8
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). “If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as
9
required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness
10
to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was
11
substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).
12
Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s three expert witnesses, Edward L. Bennett, James
13
E. Rosenberg, and Jennie McNulty, should be excluded because Defendant failed to
14
properly disclose these witnesses. Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to timely designate
15
any of the witnesses, failed to provide timely reports, and failed to make the witnesses
16
available for deposition. (Doc. No. 31-1 at 5-6.)
17
In its opposition brief, Defendant does not contest that it failed to timely designate
18
its experts or provide the experts’ reports. Defendant argues, however, that Plaintiff has
19
not been prejudiced by the delay and any prejudice can be cured. (Doc. No. 35 at 4.)
20
Defendant claims it provided Plaintiff with Dr. Bennett’s expert report on April 20, 2017,
21
after the motion to strike had been filed. (Id.)
22
At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged it received Dr. Bennett’s report
23
but had not yet deposed him. Defense counsel agreed to make Dr. Bennett available for
24
deposition and to pay the fees and expert costs related to the deposition. As Defendant
25
will bear the cost of the late deposition, and there is still sufficient time before trial, the
26
Court finds that the delay as to Dr. Bennett is harmless and denies Plaintiff’s request to
27
strike him. Defendant is to bear the fees and expert costs of deposing Dr. Bennett.
28
///
2
3:16-cv-00617-H-RBB
1
Plaintiff shall supplement its disclosures regarding rebuttal evidence under Fed. R.
2
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) by June 26, 2017. All expert discovery shall be completed by the
3
parties by the Pretrial Conference, now scheduled for July 24, 2017.
4
As for the remaining experts, James E. Rosenberg and Jennie McNulty, Plaintiff
5
has received no expert reports, nor any indication of when they will be forthcoming. At
6
the hearing, defense counsel agreed to strike these witnesses. As such, the Court grants
7
Plaintiff’s motion as to expert witnesses James E. Rosenberg and Jennie McNulty and
8
excludes their testimony pursuant the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
9
Plaintiff separately seeks to exclude the Defendant’s experts’ testimony on the
10
ground there are insufficient under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Federal Rule of
11
Evidence 702 allows expert testimony when “scientific, technical, or other specialized
12
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
13
issue.” The district court acts as a gatekeeper to assure the reliability of this expert
14
testimony. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993). The
15
court’s inquiry under Rule 702 must be flexible and accounts for the “nature of the issue,
16
the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” Kumho Tire Co. v.
17
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999). Whether to admit or exclude expert testimony
18
under Rule 702 is left to the district court’s discretion. Id. at 152. Exercising its
19
discretion, the Court finds that Dr. Bennett’s testimony would be helpful to the trier of
20
fact and rests on a reliable foundation. As such, the Court’ rejects Plaintiff’s argument
21
under Fed. R. Evid. 702.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 5, 2016
Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:16-cv-00617-H-RBB
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?