Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRON CORP., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute in this matter. Defendants seek to compel two of

plaintiffs’ expert witnesses to produce additional documents in response to their subpoenas. Having

considered the papers submitted, and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’

motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ motion to compel seeks additional documents from two of plaintiffs’ experts: Dr.

Margot Kushel, one of the treating physicians for plaintiff Larry Bowoto; and Dr. Michael Watts, a

professor of Geography and Director of the Center of African Studies at the University of California,

Berkeley. Plaintiffs argue that the motion is untimely. The Court agrees.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26-2, motions to compel expert discovery must be brought within

seven days of the expert discovery cut-off. The expert discovery cutoff for plaintiffs’ witnesses was

November 30, 2005. Defendants did not bring this motion until February 7, 2006, more than two

months after the deadline.

Defendants argue that their motion should be deemed timely because the parties meet and confer

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1211 Filed 08/29/06 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

1

Defendants’ letter brief states that “[a]s late as February 2, 2006, . . . the parties were attempting

to resolve informally the issues presented by the [Watts] subpoenas,” but defendants have produced no

evidence of this effort. Further, the meet and confer emails indicate that plaintiffs’ had earlier

definitively refused to produce the Watts documents. See, e.g., Ritchey Decl., Exh. M (“Professor Watts

will not be producing his emails with Mr. Albin. . . . If you want the documents, you will be required,

per Rule 45, to move to compel them.”).

2

sessions lasted well past the discovery deadline. Because parties should be encouraged to meet and

confer to informally resolve discovery disputes, the Court ordinarily would find this sufficient to make

an otherwise late motion timely. Here, however, plaintiffs definitively informed defendants that they

would not be producing either the Kushel documents or the Watts documents on December 22, 2005,

and January 5, 2006, respectively.1

 See Ritchey Decl., Exhs. G, M. Yet defendants did not file their

motion to compel until February 7, 2006, more than a month later. Defendants were aware of the

Court’s desire to conclude discovery; indeed, defendants opposed plaintiffs’ attempts to extend the

expert discovery cut-off on two occasions. Defendants have provided the Court with no good reason

for the month-long delay in bringing their motion to compel. Accordingly, the motion to compel is

DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’

motion to compel.

Dated: August 29, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1211 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2