Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05031/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05031-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction,

including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) for all proceedings.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MACARIA PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN MCNAMEE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5031 BZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

MORBARK, INC.’S MOTION TO

EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY

Before me is defendant Morbark, Inc.’s motion to exclude

all testimony of plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Paul Youngdahl, and to

exclude opinions contained in the “adjunct” report of

plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Glen Stevick.1 For the reasons stated

below, Morbark’s motion is DENIED as to Dr. Stevick, but

GRANTED as to Dr. Youngdahl. 

Rule 37(c)(1) “excludes untimely expert witness

testimony, unless the ‘failure to disclose the required

information is substantially justified or harmless.’” Laser

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 104 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 5
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 Rule 37(c)(1) reads in pertinent part: “A party that

without substantial justification fails to disclose information

required by Rule 26(a) . . . is not, unless such failure is

harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a

hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so

disclosed. In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the

court . . . may impose other appropriate sanctions.” 

2

Design Intern., LLC v. BJ Crystal, Inc., 2007 WL 735763, at *1

(N.D. Cal.) (quoting Yetti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor

Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also Eden v.

Washington State Patrol, 2006 WL 2927703 (W.D. Wash.)

(excluding expert testimony for failure to timely submit

report).2 Here, plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating

that their failure was either substantially justified or

harmless. Yetti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1107.

Pursuant to a stipulation and order dated March 2, 2007,

plaintiffs were required to disclose their expert witnesses

and submit all expert reports by April 9, 2007. See Docket

No. 58. The record shows that Dr. Stevick’s adjunct report -

in actuality, a letter authored by Dr. Stevick and dated April

27 - was received by Morbark on May 2, 2007. See Yee Decl. ¶

7, Exh. F. Dr. Stevick, however, was involved in a plane

crash shortly before the disclosure deadline, hampering

attempts by plaintiffs’ counsel to contact him to ensure

issuance of a completed report. Pls.’ Opp. To Morbark’s

Motion to Exclude, at 9; Hill Decl. In Support of the Mot. To

Continue Trial ¶ 14. 

In addition, Morbark admits to having provided two

inaccurate drawings of the wood chipper that was the subject

of Dr. Stevick’s opinions. See Yee Reply Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. The

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 104 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3 Dr. Stevick and Dr. Youngdahl are each engineers who

opined the chipper was defective. Thus, plaintiffs will have

expert testimony on this issue.

3

correct drawings were provided to plaintiffs on April 24,

2007. Stenson Decl. ¶ 6. In his May 15 deposition, Dr.

Stevick states that the April 27 letter was based in part on

the drawings provided by Morbark on April 24. See id. at ¶

11, Exh. A (excerpting Stevick’s deposition testimony). 

Defendants’ untimely provision of the correct chipper drawings

contributed to the late preparation of the adjunct report. 

Dr. Stevick’s April 27 letter was provided almost one

week prior to the date by which defendants’ experts

disclosures were due, see Docket No. 58 (requiring defendants

to disclose their experts by May 8, 2007), and approximately

two weeks prior to Dr. Stevick’s deposition. See Stenson

Decl. ¶ 11. Thus, it is unclear to me on this record why

defendants’ experts were unable to consider the further

opinions of Dr. Stevick, or how defendant was otherwise

harmed. 

Dr. Youngdahl’s testimony, on the other hand should be

excluded.3 When on April 10 plaintiffs’ counsel disclosed to

defendants the names and reports of its expert witnesses, the

only document included relating to Dr. Youngdahl was his

curriculum vitae. See Yee Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. D. Dr. Youngdahl’s

report was not provided until May 22, 2007. Yee Decl. ¶ 8,

Exh. G. Plaintiffs’ provide little explanation for why 

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 104 Filed 08/03/07 Page 3 of 5
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 A letter authored by plaintiffs’ attorney John Hill

and dated April 10 explained that Dr. Youngdahl was reviewing

recent deposition testimony and contentions contained in

defendants’ mediation brief, and wished to examine the chipper

used by the decedent prior to completing his report. Yee Decl.

¶ 5, Exh. D. In arguing this motion, plaintiffs claimed that

provision of the incorrect drawings delayed the report. Dr. 

Youngdahl, however, supplied no declaration explaining the

delay. Only one declaration draws an explicit connection

between the delay and the drawings. See Hill Decl. In Support

of the Mot. To Continue Trial ¶ 16. None of this explains why

Dr. Youngdahl did not provide some work product by the

stipulated deadline or, more importantly, why plaintiffs failed

to timely seek relief from the deadline. Nor have plaintiffs

adequately explained why any problems they were having with

obtaining expert reports were not raised at the case management

conference held April 9. 

5 Plaintiffs argue that they sought agreement from

defendants to reset the pertinent dates, and thought Morbark

and others had agreed. By April 23, however, Morbark had made

clear to plaintiffs that they would not agree to resetting the

deadlines. See Stenson Decl. In Support of Mot. To Continue

Trial ¶ 18, Exh. E. Still, plaintiffs waited until June 12 to

file their motion to continue the trial and related dates. See

Docket No. 82. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to mention at the

April 9 case management conference, see Docket No. 63, problems

relating to the expert disclosure deadline despite the fact

that they likely knew by that time that Youngdahl had failed to

complete his report. 

4

Dr. Youngdahl’s report was not filed in a timely manner.4 Nor

do they adequately explain why they waited until June to seek

relief from the stipulated disclosure date, which was

especially egregious in light of the fact that plaintiffs knew

by April 10 that Dr. Youngdahl’s report would be delayed.5 

Plaintiffs’ also fail to demonstrate the harmlessness of

the delay. Due to the timing of the provision of the report,

Morbark’s experts were unable to consider Dr. Youngdahl’s

opinions in preparing their reports. In addition, Dr. 

Youngdahl’s deposition was not taken on May 15 with

plaintiffs’ other experts. See Morbark’s Memo. In Support of

Mot. To Exclude, at 6-7. Morbark’s experts would likely have

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 104 Filed 08/03/07 Page 4 of 5
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

to supplement their reports to consider Dr. Youngdahl’s

opinions, and additional depositions may be required. 

Plaintiff’s tardiness was not harmless. See Wong v. Regents

of University of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir.

2005) (emphasizing the relationship between a court’s pretrial deadlines and the orderly progression of litigation).

For the foregoing reasons, Morbark’s motion to exclude

Dr. Stevick’s adjunct report is DENIED, and its motion to

exclude the testimony of Dr. Youngdahl is GRANTED. 

Dated: August 3, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\PEREZ\ORDER.MOTION.EXCLUDE.EXPERT.FINAL.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05031-BZ Document 104 Filed 08/03/07 Page 5 of 5