Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-152/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTINTERVENORS’ MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant-Intervenors’ August 14, 2008

motion for clarification. At issue in this motion is whether intervenors, such as police chiefs

and district attorneys, or employees of intervenors, such as department commanders of a

sheriff’s department, who intend to testify as both percipient and expert witnesses must

disclose expert reports before they are allowed to present opinion testimony under Federal

Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Upon careful consideration, the Court GRANTS IN

PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant-Intervenors’ motion as discussed below.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1449 Filed 09/05/08 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs first contend that this Court’s pretrial orders require all expert witnesses to

submit expert reports. For example, on October 10, 2007, the Court ordered that “[d]irect

testimony from expert witnesses will be presented through their expert reports and no more

than thirty minutes of live testimony, followed by cross-examination.” Oct. 10, 2007 Order

Bifurcating Proceedings & Setting Deadlines for Phase I at 6 (emphasis added). Similarly,

on July 2, 2008, the Court ordered that “[e]xpert disclosures shall be made, and expert

reports exchanged, on or before August 15, 2008.” July 2, 2008 Order for Pretrial Prep. at 3

(emphasis added). Plaintiffs contend that these provisions make clear “that all expert

testimony will be disclosed in writing, with a limited amount of additional live testimony.” 

Opp’n at 2. However, the Court did not consider the sort of non-retained percipient-expert

witnesses at issue in the pending motion when issuing its orders regarding expert reports, and

Plaintiffs’ argument based on these orders is therefore unpersuasive.

Instead, the Court turns to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to resolve this dispute. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) provides that:

Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, [the]

disclosure [of the identity of an expert witnesses] must be

accompanied by a written report – prepared and signed by the

witness – if the witness is one retained or specially employed to

provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the

party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiffs contend that the witnesses at issue in this motion are

essentially “specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case” or individuals

“whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony,” id.,

because they are testifying outside the scope of their employment.

Defendant-Intervenors do not dispute that “a majority of courts require reports from

employee experts who render opinions on matters outside the scope of their employment.” 

Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., Case No. C04-1830 CRB (JL), 2007 WL 1089702,

at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2007). Rather, Defendant-Intervenors argue that their witnesses

have been designated to testify on issues within the scope of their duties as public officials.

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1449 Filed 09/05/08 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The witness, Rick Dostal, appears in the Law Enforcement Intervenors’ list of expert

witnesses dated August 15, 2008. Ex. A to Norman Decl. at 3. However, he does not appear

in the Law Enforcement Intervenors’ amended list of expert witnesses dated August 27,

2008. Ex. A to Barlow Decl.

3

Plaintiffs do not appear to contest that it is within the scope of an employee’s duties to

form opinions on the potential impact of a prisoner release order on operations within that

employee’s jurisdiction. For example, Plaintiffs argue that the scope of employment for one

witness, who has since been withdrawn as an expert witness,1

 “surely does not include

assessing impacts of potential court orders on other counties,” but they do not argue that the

witness’s ordinary course of employment would not include assessing the impacts of such

orders within his county of employment Opp’n at 4. The Court agrees that a city or county

employee may, within the regular scope of his or her employment, develop opinions as to the

impact of a prisoner release order on his or her city or county. Consequently, the designated

witnesses need not prepare expert reports regarding such opinions.

However, Defendant-Intervenors fail to persuade the Court that it is within a city or

county employee’s scope of employment to opine on the possible effects of a prisoner release

order on other cities or counties or, more broadly, on public safety generally. Indeed,

Defendant-Intervenors’ reply makes clear that such opinions are not based on personal

experience gained during the regular scope of employment:

Only those designated experts who have personal experience

based on employment related service on such committees and

commissions [such as the Little Hoover Commission or

committees related to Assembly Bill 900], or through service in

statewide organizations such as the California State Sheriff’s

Association, California Police Chief’s Association or Chief

Probation Officers of California, or through employment with

more than one law enforcement agency will be testifying

regarding impacts beyond their current employing agency.

Barlow Decl. ¶ 4. Thus, to the extent that the designated witnesses “testify regarding impacts

beyond their current employing agency,” they do so based not on their day-to-day

employment responsibilities but, rather, based on specialized knowledge gained through

prior employment or service in organizations or on committees and commissions. Such

testimony is therefore indistinguishable from expert testimony that would be obtained from a

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1449 Filed 09/05/08 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

retained expert, and this Court would ordinarily be inclined to require expert reports

regarding such testimony.

Nonetheless, “[t]he reason for requiring expert reports is the elimination of unfair

surprise to the opposing party and the conservation of resources.” Elgas v. Colo. Belle

Corp., 179 F.R.D. 296, 299 (D. Nev. 1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Given

the history of this case, as well as Plaintiffs’ completed or planned depositions of all

designated non-retained experts, the Court does not find it expedient to order all designated

witnesses to produce expert reports. In particular, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they

will be unduly prejudiced by being required to take depositions of these witnesses in the

absence of expert reports. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to order the parties and

intervenors to proceed as follows:

1. For Jerry Powers and John Ingrassia, who were deposed by Plaintiffs prior to the

designation of expert witnesses and whose depositions did not include questions regarding

expert testimony, Barlow Decl. ¶ 7, Defendant-Intervenors shall either withdraw the witness

as an expert witness on or before September 15, 2008, or allow a brief supplemental

deposition of the witness limited to expert testimony. If Defendant-Intervenors choose the

latter option, they shall either (a) produce an expert report prior to the supplemental

deposition and no later than September 15, 2008, or (b) have the witness’s expert testimony

at trial be limited to the scope of the witness’s supplemental deposition testimony.

2. For all other non-retained expert witnesses disclosed by Defendant-Intervenors

who have not produced an expert report but who have been deposed, Defendant-Intervenors

shall either (a) produce an expert report on or before September 15, 2008, and thereafter

allow a brief supplemental deposition of the witness limited to any additional issues raised in

the report that were not discussed at the original deposition, or (b) have the witness’s expert

testimony at trial be limited to the scope of the witness’s original deposition testimony.

3. For all non-retained expert witnesses disclosed by Defendant-Intervenors who have

neither produced an expert report nor yet been deposed, Defendant-Intervenors shall either

(a) produce an expert report prior to the deposition and on or before September 15, 2008, or

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1449 Filed 09/05/08 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

(b) have the witness’s expert testimony at trial be limited to the scope of the witness’s

deposition testimony.

4. Any expert reports produced in compliance with this order need only include issues

outside of the witness’s scope of employment. Thus, such reports need not discuss opinions

on the potential impact of a prisoner release order within the city or county in which the

witness is currently employed, but they must discuss opinions on the potential impact of a

prisoner release order outside the city or county in which the witness is currently employed.

5. Plaintiffs shall have until September 25, 2008, to disclose rebuttal experts and

produce rebuttal expert reports in response to any expert reports produced by DefendantIntervenors in compliance with this order.

6. The expert discovery cut-off shall remain on October 6, 2008. However, the

following may, if necessary, be taken through October 13, 2008: (a) supplemental

depositions of Jerry Powers and John Ingrassia regarding their expert testimony;

(b) depositions of any designated witnesses at issue in this motion who produce expert

reports following the date of this order; and (c) depositions of any rebuttal witnesses

disclosed by Plaintiffs in compliance with the preceding paragraph.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed in this order, Defendant-Intervenors’ motion for

clarification is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The parties and intervenors

shall proceed with discovery regarding non-retained expert witnesses as ordered above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 09/05/08 /s/ 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1449 Filed 09/05/08 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Dated: 09/05/08 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 09/05/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1449 Filed 09/05/08 Page 6 of 6