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

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BATTERY HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to exclude

Battery Handling Systems’(“defendant”) experts who were designated

after the deadline for the designation of experts. The court

decides the matter based on the papers and without oral argument.

On September 12, 2006, the court issued a scheduling order in

the above captioned case. Pursuant to the order, the parties were

to disclose experts no later than January 25, 2007. Defendant

failed to comply with this deadline. Instead, defendant filed an

expert disclosure on February 5, 2007. Defendant avers that

attorneys for defendant did not receive a copy of the scheduling

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 42 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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

order and therefore did not know of the deadline. The court is

unpersuaded by defendant’s argument. Indeed, the court docket

reveals that a copy of the scheduling order was electronically

served on Michael J. Daley, via his email address. 

The court also notes that defendant’s expert disclosure did

not comply with the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which require that expert reports accompany

the designation. Defendant’s disclosure contained a list of

experts, but no reports. Discovery is set to close on March 11,

2007. Defendant maintains that it will provide copies of the

expert reports by the end of February. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 addresses a party's failure

to disclose expert reports and states:

A party that without substantial justification fails to

disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or

to amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule

26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted

to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion

any witness or information not so disclosed. In addition to

or in lieu of this sanction, the court, on motion and after

affording an opportunity to be heard, may impose other

appropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring payment of

reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the

failure, these sanctions may include any of the actions

authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and may

include informing the jury of the failure to make the

disclosure.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

observed that “we give particularly wide latitude to the district

court's discretion to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” Yeti

by Molly v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.

2001)(citing Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo Y

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 42 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 2001)).

In Yeti by Molly the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's

exclusion of expert testimony where the defendant disclosed the

expert's report outside the time provided by Rule 26(a)(2). 

In the case at bar, defendant has not shown that its failure

to comply with the court’s order and Rule 26 was harmless.

Plaintiff has the right to the time the court provided for research

and investigation prior to the close of discovery. The court

provides sixty days to schedule and prepare for depositions of

experts. Because of defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s

order and Rule 26, plaintiff will have two weeks to review

defendant’s expert reports prior to the close of discovery. In

light of defendant’s failure to comply with both the court’s

scheduling order, as well as the requirements of Rule 26, the court

will exclude the testimony of the experts listed on defendant’s

disclosure. Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude is GRANTED.

2. The hearing set for Friday, February 23, 2007 is hereby

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 21, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 42 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 3