Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02935/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02935-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

1Pl.’s Letter Br. submitted on July 14, 2005; Defs.’ Letter Br. filed July 15, 2005; Pl.’s Reply filed July

20, 2005.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESCANNET, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SALVADOR CHAVEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-02935 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY (NONRETAINED EXPERT DISCLOSURES)

The parties have submitted letter briefs 1regarding whether defendants must file expert reports as

described in Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) for eight non-retained experts. All of these experts

“are either individualdefendants or are officers and/or employees ofthe corporate defendants.”Pl.’s LetterBr.

at 1. Defendants argue that the Federal Rules do not require these experts to file reports because they do not

fall within the two groups of experts identified in Rule 26, and thatrequiring them to produce full expert reports

would cause an unnecessary burden. Plaintiffs contend that, without these expert reports, they have “no way

of knowing who to designate in rebuttal to the currently unknown opinions of defendants’ non-retained

experts.” Id. at 2. 

Following the initial disclosure of experts, FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) provides:

Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court, this disclosure shall, with respect to

a witness who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or

whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, be

accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness.

The plain language of the rule contemplates a potential class of experts who do not need to be accompanied

by a written report: those who are neither “retained” nor “specially employed to provide expert testimony.”

One district court has reasoned that, because FRCP 23(a)(2)(B) identifies two specific classes of experts that
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

need to comply with the report requirement, “by implication, those employees who do not regularly testify for

the employer but are doing so in a particular case need not provide the report.” Navajo Nation v. Norris, 189

F.R.D. 610, 612 (E.D. Wash. 1999). 

Other courts reject this plain language interpretation, finding that it undermines “the evident purpose of

promoting full pre-trial disclosure of expert information.” Day v. CONRAIL, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6596,

*4 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 1996); see also KW Plastics v. United States Can Co., 199 F.R.D. 687, 689 (M.D.

Ala. 2000). Those courts have held that only a fact witness who also offers an expert opinion, like a physician,

does not need to provide a writtenreport. Day v. CONRAIL, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6596 at *6; McCulloch

v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 223 F.R.D. 26, 28 (D. Conn. 2004).

Here, the eight experts designated bydefendants(and the one or more non-retained experts designated

by plaintiffs) are neither retained nor specially employed to give expert testimony; rather, they are named

defendants or employees of defendants Remend, Inc. and Silkroad Software & Services, Inc. The Court

agrees with defendants that the plain language of the rule does not mandate an expert report to be produced

for such non-retained experts. The Court finds, however, that allowing these individuals to testify as experts

without some disclosure of their opinions, prior to trial or further deposition, would undermine the goal of full

and fair discovery. Therefore, it will exercise its broad discretion to promote a fair and just result. See FRCP

26(a)(2)(B) (“Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court . . .”). The Court, hereby, ORDERS all

parties to produce, no later than September 6, 2005, a statement for each non-retained expert that

“contain[s] a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data

or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; [and] any exhibits to be used as a

summary of or support for the opinions.” FRCP 26(a)(2)(B). 

///
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

3

In the event that either side feels it must designate further rebuttal experts in light of the information

contained in the statements to be provided, it shall meet and confer with the other side in an effort to resolve

the extent and timing of such further designation. However, the existing schedules for motions and trial shall

not be altered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2005 

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge