Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00978-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK VANIER,

NO. CIV. S-06-978 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BATTERY HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

Mark Vanier (plaintiff) brought suit against Battery Handling

Systems Inc. (defendant), for an injury plaintiff sustained when

an industrial forklift battery (manufactured by defendant) fell on

his foot. Pending before the court are two motions filed by

defendant: a motion to reconsider and a motion to exclude one of

plaintiff’s experts. The court decides the matters based on the

papers and after oral argument. 

////

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 89 Filed 04/27/07 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

2

I.

Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider

A. Standard for Motions to Reconsider 

“Under the ‘law of the case’ doctrine a court is generally

precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been

decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical

case.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th

Cir.1997)(citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993)). 

Local Rule 78-230(k) requires that a party seeking

reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new

or different facts or circumstances . . . which . . . were not

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

the motion.” Generally speaking, before reconsideration may be

granted there must be a change in the controlling law or facts,

the need to correct a clear error, or the need to prevent

manifest injustice. See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876.

B. Analysis

Defendant asks the court to reconsider its February 21,

2007 order. In that order, the court granted plaintiff’s motion

to exclude defendant’s experts who were designated after the

deadline for the designation of experts. The court found that

defendant not only failed to designate experts prior to the

deadline set forth in the court’s scheduling order, but

defendant also failed to comply with the requirements set forth

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which requires

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 89 Filed 04/27/07 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

Defense counsel has no good explanation for his mistake, 1

other than oversight. Defense counsel tries to argue that he never

received a copy of the scheduling order. This is simply not true.

A copy was served on at least one member of his firm. The court

therefore disregards defense counsel’s argument that he did not

receive a copy of the order.

3

that expert reports accompany the designation. See February 21,

2007 Order. Defendant’s late disclosure contained a list of

experts, but no reports. 

Defendant now asks that the February 21, 2007 order be set

aside. Defense counsel admits that he failed to comply with the

scheduling order and Rule 26, but asks that the court reconsider

its decision to exclude the experts. Defense counsel states 1

that the February 21 Order “could essentially lead to judgment

for plaintiff because expert witness testimony is important to

defend against plaintiff’s claims. This sanction is not

commensurate with [defendant’s] unintentional act of failing to

calendar and timely disclose Rule 26 reports.” Def.’s Mot. to

Recon. at 3. Defendant requests that the time for discovery be

enlarged so that plaintiff may depose defendant’s experts. 

Discovery cut-off was March 11, 2007 and trial is set for

November, 2007. Defendant argues that since trial is not set

until November, it would be harmless to reopen discovery. 

To the extent that these mistakes may cost defense counsel

the case, the mistakes are of defense counsel’s own doing. Given

that defense counsel failed to follow both the scheduling order

of this court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

sanctions are clearly warranted. That said, a sanction which

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 89 Filed 04/27/07 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

4

completely excludes defendant’s expert witnesses is

disproportionate to defense counsel’s errors. Instead, defense

counsel shall incur monetary sanctions. Specifically, defense

counsel shall compensate plaintiff’s counsel for the time which

was required to litigate this issue, file the pending motion for

summary judgment and take the depositions of defendant’s expert

witnesses. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to reconsider is

granted. 

II.

Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. John Hancock

Defendant also moves to exclude the testimony of Dr.

Hancock, one of plaintiff’s experts. Defendant avers that

defense counsel was not served with Dr. Hancock’s report until

February 1, 2007, almost a week after the deadline for expert

disclosure set forth in the scheduling order. Plaintiff’s

counsel concedes that the report was filed late and explains

that he had trouble contacting Dr. Hancock, but once contact was

made the report was quickly turned over to defense counsel.

Given that the court is not excluding defendant’s experts,

the court will not exclude plaintiff’s expert. Accordingly, the

motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert is denied.

For the reasons set forth above, the court orders as

follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to reconsider is GRANTED.

2. Defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. Hancock is DENIED.

3. All previously set dates are hereby VACATED. The

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 89 Filed 04/27/07 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

5

court sets the following new dates:

a. Close of discovery: July 23, 2007.

b. Law and motion cut-off: September 23, 2007

c. Pre-trial conference: December 10, 2007 at

1:30 p.m.

d. Trial: March 18, 2008

4. The hearing on the motions for summary judgment,

currently set for May 7, 2007 is hereby VACATED. 

5. Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to file by May 14,

2007 an affidavit that sets forth the costs incurred

by the failure of defense counsel to timely disclose

experts. Plaintiff’s counsel shall bill at an hourly

rate of $150.00 and shall include the time plaintiff’s

counsel spent litigating the issue of the late

disclosure, writing the pending motion for summary

judgment and the time to depose defendant’s now

disclosed experts. Once the affidavit has been filed,

counsel for defendant shall pay said amount to

plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant shall file an

affidavit stating that these sums have not been, and

will not be, billed, directly or indirectly, to the

client or in any way made the responsibility of the

client as attorneys' fees or costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 26, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 89 Filed 04/27/07 Page 5 of 5