Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01994/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01994-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JACQUES,

2:05-CV-1994-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLSTATE INSURANCE, LORI

LAURITZEN, and DOES 1 through

50 inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Thomas Jacques alleges

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) discriminated

against him, harassed him and retaliated against him in violation

of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal.

Gov’t Code sections 12920 and 12940, et seq. In addition,

Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical leave to which he was

entitled under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C.A.

§ 2612, as well as under the California Family Rights Act

(“CFRA”), Cal. Gov’t Code section 12945.2.

///

Case 2:05-cv-01994-MCE -DAD Document 70 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 6
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 oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Further, Plaintiff alleges Allstate failed to reasonably

accommodate his disability in violation of FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code

section 12940 et seq. Pursuant to an Order of this Court 1

granting in part and denying in part summary judgment, the only

remaining claims are retaliation and failure to accommodate. 

Presently before the Court is Allstate’s Motion to Strike

Plaintiff’s disclosed expert witnesses. As explained below,

Allstate’s Motion is DENIED. However, Plaintiff is hereby

directed to pay a sanction of $250.00 for violation of this

Court’s earlier Order. 

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2006, this Court entered a Pretrial (Status)

Scheduling Order (“PTSO”). The Order provided that “all counsel

are to designate in writing, file with the court, and serve upon

all other parties the name, address and areas of expertise of

each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than

October 10, 2006. The designation shall be accompanied by a

written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report

shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).” PTSO, Section V,

p. 2-3. It further provides that “failure of a party to comply

with the disclosure schedule as set forth above in all likelihood

will preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the

time of trial.” Id.

Case 2:05-cv-01994-MCE -DAD Document 70 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 6
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

On September 21, 2006, Plaintiff served his first expert

disclosure statement without first filing that statement with the

Court. The statement included four proposed experts: Lisa

Suhonos, Scott Barer, Joyce Blonskij and George McGlaughlin. 

Plaintiff failed to provide the requisite written reports

prepared and signed by the foregoing experts. On October 10,

2006, Plaintiff filed and served his second expert disclosure

statement. Like before, the disclosure statement again failed to

include a written report prepared and signed by each retained

expert. Both disclosure statements were in violation of this

Court’s PTSO requiring a written report accompany each expert

designation.

In fact, Plaintiff’s original counsel, responsible for the

foregoing errors and omissions, abruptly resigned from his

representation of Plaintiff subsequent to committing those

errors. Plaintiff’s current counsel, Mr. Pongratz, only learned

of the defective disclosures after the deadline has passed. 

Immediately, Mr. Pongratz sought to correct the errors by seeking

and obtaining the necessary reports and promptly advancing them

to Defense counsel. Similarly, Plaintiff offered to withdraw two

of the previously listed experts, Lisa Suhonos and Joyce

Blonskij, in an effort to mitigate the effect of these errors. 

By November 29, 2006, one month after the discovery defect was

identified, Defendant’s counsel was in possession of all

necessary reports. Nonetheless, Defendant’s counsel filed the

present Motion seeking to strike all Plaintiff’s expert witnesses

based on his violation of this Court’s PTSO.

///

Case 2:05-cv-01994-MCE -DAD Document 70 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

STANDARD

“A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without

peril.’ [citation omitted] ... Disregard of the order would

undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the

agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and

the cavalier.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). If a party fails to obey a pretrial

scheduling order, the Court may properly strike a party’s

pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 37(b)(2)(C).

Nonetheless, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) empowers

the Court to sanction violations of a scheduling order. 

Specifically, the Rule provides that “[i]f a party or party’s

attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial order ... the

judge, upon motion or the judge’s own initiative, may make such

orders with regard thereto as are just. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f);

see also Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir. 2001). 

ANALYSIS

Allstate contends that the appropriate sanction in the

present action is to exclude all Plaintiff’s expert witnesses

given Plaintiff’s failure to attach the requisite expert reports. 

Plaintiff replies that the sanction of exclusion would be a harsh

remedy given that Allstate has suffered no prejudice as a result

of the foregoing error and public policy would dictate Plaintiff

be permitted to present his disclosed experts. The Court agrees.

Case 2:05-cv-01994-MCE -DAD Document 70 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 6
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 Rio case addressed the suitability of dismissal as a 2

sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders. While not

expressly on point, the Court finds the central issues raised in

both instances analogous. Therefore, the Court shall consider

the factors set forth in Rio to assess the suitability of

exclusion of Plaintiff’s experts here. 

5

As Rule 16 clarifies, the Court may impose such orders as

are just to remedy violations of its’ PTSO. As a means of

assessing the appropriate sanction, the Court may consider the

following factors: (1) the public’s interest in the expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Rio

Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th

Cir. 2002).2

In the present action, the Court finds the foregoing factors

weigh in favor of permitting Plaintiff to bring his two fully

disclosed experts. Specifically, the Court’s docket will not be

affected by permitting Plaintiff to put on his two experts nor is

there a risk of prejudice to Allstate given that the requisite

reports have long been produced. Similarly, the Court finds that

permitting the disposition of this matter on the merits with all

relevant evidence will be better served by permitting Plaintiff

to put on his expert witnesses despite his delay in timely

producing the subject reports. Finally, there is a far lesser

sanction the Court can impose to acknowledge Plaintiff’s failing

yet permit a full adjudication of the merits of his claim. 

Namely, the Court finds that a sanction of $500.00 is appropriate

to redress Plaintiff’s violation of this Court’s PTSO.

Case 2:05-cv-01994-MCE -DAD Document 70 Filed 02/05/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

The Parties should note that the Court places great weight

on Plaintiff’s acknowledgment of his error and his prompt attempt

to rectify the same. Allstate has the benefit of the reports as

intended by the spirit and letter of this Court’s PTSO. Trial

preparation has not been impeded nor is there any other

discernable prejudice resulting from Plaintiff’s omission. In

addition, Plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn two of the four

original experts in an effort to mitigate any damages caused by

his error. 

CONCLUSION

The Court finds it appropriate to exclude Lisa Suhonos and

Joyce Blonskij as expert witnesses in this matter. Scott Barer

and George McGlaughlin shall not be excluded to the extent they

meet all other evidentiary requirements. Plaintiff is hereby

directed to tender payment in the amount of $250.00 to the Clerk

of this Court within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order

as a sanction for his failure to fully comply with the Court’s

PTSO.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 5, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01994-MCE -DAD Document 70 Filed 02/05/07 Page 6 of 6