Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06675/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06675-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAT THANH LUONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-06675-EMC (JSC)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF 

SEEKING TO STAY DEPOSITIONS 

AND COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF

EXPERTS’ REPORTS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 204, 206

Now pending before the Court are the parties’ separate letter briefs regarding the 

September 5 and 7 depositions of Plaintiffs’ “unretained experts” Dr. Gage and Dr. Kuper. (Dkt. 

Nos. 204 & 206.) Defendants seek an order staying the depositions until Plaintiffs are required to 

produce expert reports from these experts specific to this case. Defendants’ request is denied for 

the most part.

These experts, even if unpaid, must provide a written report. The Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure provide that a witness that “is retained or specially employed to provide expert 

testimony in the case” must provide a signed written report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). When an 

expert “is part of the ongoing sequence of events” and reaches his opinion as a result of that 

experience the expert is not “retained or specially employed.” Downey v. Bob's Disc. Furniture 

Holdings, Inc., 633 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2011); see also Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, 

LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a treating physician is only exempt from 

Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s written report requirement to the extent that his opinions were formed during 

the course of treatment). From the Court’s review of the proposed experts’ reports in the Stiavetti 

matter, both experts appear to be offering classic expert opinions; indeed, that is why they were 

retained experts in Stiavetti and submitted reports in that proceeding.

Case 3:17-cv-06675-EMC Document 208 Filed 08/29/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

That being said, Plaintiffs have provided expert reports for these proposed witnesses; 

namely, the expert reports prepared for Stiavetti. As with all expert witnesses, their trial testimony 

shall be limited to what was disclosed in the reports, see U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Lee Invs. 

LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1138 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding no abuse of discretion where trial court 

“limit[ed] expert testimony to the expert’s area of expertise and the subjects contained in the 

expert’s disclosure”); thus, Defendants’ concern that these experts will offer opinions based on the 

specific facts of this case is misplaced. They cannot. Defendants’ insistence that these reports do 

not include any opinions relevant to this action is a matter to be addressed in a motion in limine. 

The depositions shall go forward as scheduled.

One additional matter. Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires the expert report to include a list of all 

other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by 

deposition as well as a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the 

case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(v), (vi). If it has not already been done, on or before September 

3, 2019, Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with an updated list of any cases in which the 

witnesses have testified as experts since the preparation of the Stiavetti reports as well as a 

statement as to the compensation, if any, these witnesses will receive for their testimony in this 

case.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 204, 206. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06675-EMC Document 208 Filed 08/29/19 Page 2 of 2