Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01781/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01781-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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 - 06cv1781 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1781 WQH (NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO

FILE A MOTION AFTER THE CUTOFF

DATE TO SUPPLEMENT PLAINTIFF’S

EXPERT WITNESS REPORT WITH

REBUTTAL IGNITION TEST

[Doc. No. 22]

vs.

APPLICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC,

Defendant.

Plaintiff filed a request that the Court allow it to either file a motion asking permission to

supplement its expert report, or to outright grant Plaintiff’s request to supplement its expert’s

report. 

On May 18, 2007, the Court issued a scheduling order that set the date to exchange initial

expert reports as October 19, 2007, and the date to supplement those reports as November 2, 2007. 

Discovery closed on December 18, 2007. No party ever requested to extend any of the dates in the

scheduling order.

Plaintiff says that on April 28, 2008, Defendant’s expert produced a supplemental report. 

Plaintiff’s expert analyzed the supplemental report and prepared a response to it on July 8, 2008. 

Plaintiff asked Defendant to stipulate to Plaintiff’s supplemental report. Defendant did not agree.

The Court has considered the request, and for lack of good cause shown, DENIES Plaintiff’s

Case 3:06-cv-01781-WQH-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/21/08 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

- 2 - 06cv1781 WQH (NLS)

request to supplement its expert’s report. Here, Defendant never requested or received the Court’s

permission to extend the expert’s supplemental report disclosure deadline. This Court, therefore, finds

that Plaintiff’s proper remedy is to file a motion in limine with the district judge asking to strike

Defendant’s supplemental expert report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01781-WQH-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/21/08 Page 2 of 2