Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02973/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02973-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HENRY WASHBURN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PAULO MORGADO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-02973 JSW

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

FOR DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT

TESTIMONY AND DENYING

REQUEST TO CORRECT THE

RECORD

Now before the Court is Defendants’ request for administrative relief pursuant to Civil

Local 7-11 for enlargement of time for expert disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2)(C) and Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to correct the record. Having carefully reviewed

the parties’ papers and considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good

cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ request and DENIES Plaintiff’s

counsel’s request.

A. Defendants’ Request to Enlarge Time for Expert Discovery.

 The parties are, by this time, familiar with the facts of this dispute. Although any and all

discovery disputes were referred to a magistrate judge and any requests for an extension of the

discovery period would have been granted for good cause shown, the parties instead engaged in

self-help, engaging in extensive discovery after the court-ordered deadline. At the status

conference on April 25, 2005, this Court explicitly ruled that the parties could engage in 

Case 3:03-cv-02973-JSW Document 79 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

discovery after the deadline by voluntary agreement, but that the Court would not enforce any

such agreement. 

Defendants’ request for relief, therefore, serves as a motion for reconsideration. 

Defendants have failed to demonstrate a material difference in fact or law from that which was

already presented to the Court, or the emergence of new material facts or change of law, or a

manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which

were presented to the Court. Further, Defendants have failed to demonstrate excusable neglect

or any substantive reason for the parties’ failure to complete discovery by the court-imposed

deadline. Therefore, Defendants’ request to enlarge time to complete expert discovery is

DENIED.

B. Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Request to Correct the Record.

Similarly, Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to correct the record serves as a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s ruling from the bench on April 25, 2005, its subsequent order

dated April 26, 2005 which memorializes the ruling regarding sanctions, and its last order dated

May 3, 2005 which reiterates its findings and reasons in denying Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration. The Court has determined that the sanctions imposed are necessary to enforce

its standing orders, the civil local rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel for

both parties are once again admonished to follow them.

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, Defendants’ request for enlargement of time for disclosure of expert

testimony is DENIED and Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to correct the record is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-02973-JSW Document 79 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 2