Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYNTHIA MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION;

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 04-01312 JW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a diversity action in which Plaintiff, Cynthia Mendez, alleges bad faith breach of a disability

insurance contract. Plaintiff has designated Stephen Prater as her only expert to testify at trial on claims

handling procedures in the insurance industry. 

On August 22, 2005, Unum Provident and Provident Life, Defendants, moved to enforce Mr.

Prater's compliance with Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Discovery Order dated July 8, 2005. (Motion to

Enforce Judgment, Docket Item No. 124.) On July 18, 2005, Mr. Prater executed a declaration which did

not specify the percentage of time spent providing consulting or expert witness services for Plaintiff’s law

firm. However, Magistrate Judge Lloyd found this declaration and Mr. Prater August 26, 2005

supplemental declaration to be “nonsensical” and ordered the latter to be stricken. 

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 159 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

On September 28, 2005, Magistrate Judge Lloyd ordered Mr. Prater to provide Defendants with a

supplemental declaration, no later than October 4, 2005, which (a) provides the percentage of his time

spent providing consulting or expert witness services for the law firm representing Plaintiff in this lawsuit and

(b) explains how those figures were calculated. Magistrate Judge Lloyd also found it appropriate to order

Mr. Prater to “attest to his estimates directly and no on ‘information and belief.’” (See Docket Item No.

150 at 2.) To date, Mr. Prater has yet to provide Defendants with the supplemental declaration. As the

result, as part of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for a hearing on October 17, 2005

with this Court, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s proffer of evidence which includes Mr.Prater nonsubstantive declaration reports. 

Expert witness designations are governed by Rule 26(a)(B)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Expert witness designations must be accompanied by written reports prepared and signed by

the expert. Id. The report must contain 1) the expert's opinions and basis for those opinions, 2) the data

and information considered by the expert in arriving at these opinions, 3) the exhibits used to support

opinions, and 4) a description of the qualifications of the expert, a list of publications of the expert, the

compensation to be paid to the expert, and a list of prior testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(B)(2). These

requirements are designed to ensure that the expert has appropriate credentials and qualifications as well as

to measure potential biases. Generally, a party’s remedy for an inadequate expert report is to seek an

order compelling adequate discovery. In this case, Defendants have sought twice to compel Mr. Prater to

produce more complete reports and declarations with little success. 

Exclusion of expert report or testimony is appropriate only when the failure to provide an adequate

expert report is in violation of an order compelling discovery. See Rutter Group, Cal. Prac. Guide, Fed.

Civ. P. Before Trial, §§ 11:209.5-.9, 11:918-919 (2005). It is clear to this Court that Mr. Prater has

failed to comply with the orders compelling discovery. However, as he is the only expert witness proffered

by Plaintiff, and has provided some information, this Court will give Mr. Prater the benefit of the doubt. 

Accordingly, on or before October 12, 2005, Mr. Prater shall comply with Magistrate Judge

Lloyd’s Discovery Order of September 18, 2005 by filing the appropriate declarations as specified in the

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 159 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

order. If there are no filing by the specified date, all parties shall appear in Courtroom No. 8, 4th Floor,

United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, Ca. on October 17, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. and

to show cause, if any, why the Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s evidence should not be sustained. 

In light of this Order, the presently scheduled hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment is vacated. The new hearing date is set for October 24, 2005 at 9 a.m.

 

Dated: October 7, 2005 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 159 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Barbara L. Lyons blyons@cpsmlaw.com

Jeffrey K. Rubin jrubin@frwlaw.us

John C. Ferry jferry@kelher.com

John T. Burnite jtb@kelher.com

Kenneth R. Friedman kfriedman@frwlaw.us

Michael G. Glanzberg mgg@kelher.com

Richard Henry Friedman rfriedman@frwlaw.us

Robert Herbert Bohn Snr. Bbohn@bohnlaw.com

Thomas M. Herlihy herlihy@kelher.com

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN MAILED TO:

Marjorie E. Motooka

Prestholt & Fidone LLP

39 E. Union Street, Second Floor

Pasadena, CA 91103

Dated: October 7, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

/s/ JW Chambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 159 Filed 10/07/05 Page 4 of 4