Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00647/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-00647-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARTHUR G. MAIONCHI, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 03-0647 JF PVT

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESS

TESTIMONY; AND

RECOMMENDATION THAT

DISTRICT JUDGE FOGEL EXCLUDE

THE TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM

GWIRE

On July 2, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the testimony of experts Plaintiffs argue

were not timely disclosed. Defendant opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted 1

by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without oral argument. Based on the

moving and opposition papers filed, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED with regard to Gary

Hokkanen. Under Rule 37(c)(1), “[a] party that without substantial justification fails to disclose

information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1) ... is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to

use as evidence at trial, at a hearing, or on motion any witness or information not so disclosed.” 

District courts are permitted particularly wide latitude in imposing sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1). 

Case 5:03-cv-00647-JF Document 102 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Because the court finds Defendant’s delay in disclosing Mr. Hokkanen and his report was 2

harmless, the court does not address the issue of substantial justification. While there is a good

argument for finding the timing of the disclosure of Mr. Hokkanen to be substantially justified, the

timing of the disclosure of his report is questionable.

ORDER, page 2

See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v.. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9 Cir. 2001). Exclusion th

of Mr. Hokkanen is thus appropriate only if Defendant was not substantially justified in disclosing

him after the deadline for expert disclosures set in the scheduling order, and Plaintiffs were harmed

by the delay. In the present case, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Mr. Hokkanen is a rebuttal expert. 

The fact that Defendant and its expert were able to see Plaintiffs’ expert’s report before providing

Mr. Hokkanen’s report did not constitute harm because that is the usual course for rebuttal experts. 

As expert discovery is still open, Plaintiffs may still depose Mr. Hokkanen. Under all the

circumstances of this case, Defendants’ delay in disclosing this expert and his report has not caused

harm to Plaintiffs that would warrant exclusion of this expert’s testimony.2

IT IS RECOMMENDED, however, that District Judge Fogel exclude from any motion or

trial the testimony and report of William Gwire. Mr. Gwire, who opines about the reasonableness of

certain attorneys fees included in Plaintiffs’ damage calculations, is not a rebuttal expert because the

expert he purportedly “rebuts” is not an attorney and does not opine regarding the reasonableness of

the subject attorneys fees. Defendant has not shown it was substantially justified in waiting 30 days

after the expert disclosure deadline to disclose an expert who is not a rebuttal expert. Nor has

Defendant shown that its unjustified delay was harmless. Under the current schedule, which has

already been extended twice, there is insufficient time for Plaintiffs to retain an expert to rebut Mr.

Gwire’s opinion, for that expert to prepare a report, and for Defendant to depose that expert all

within the remaining 7 business days before the close of expert discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party may serve and file specific written objections to

this recommendation within ten (10) working days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); CIVIL L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the court’s order.

Dated: 7/9/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00647-JF Document 102 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 2