Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00886/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00886-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 40:258(a) Public Buildings &amp; Property: Land Condemnation

---

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 07cv886

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

14.30 ACRES OF LAND, more or less,

situated in Sand Diego County, State of

California; TIMOTHY LICHTY and

SHERYL LEE LICHTY, CO-TRUSTEES OF

THE TIM AND SHERRY LICHTY

FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 24,

1991; and OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 07CV886 AJB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

RECONSIDERATION AND 

STRIKING LATE DESIGNATION,

OPINION AND TESTIMONY 

OF EXPERT WITNESS

[Doc. No. 153]

Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for reconsideration on February 4, 2011 of Judge Houston’s

decision on February 3, 2011, [Doc. No. 152], to allow Defendants to designate a California Costal

Commission (CCC) expert within 30 days. Judge Houston’s ruling reversed to prior rulings in this case

by Judge Stormes and Judge Whelan which denied the late designation as unjustified and prejudicial. 

The Defendants filed an opposition on February 15, 2011, [Doc. No. 157]. This case was then

transferred by Judge Houston to Judge Battaglia on March 25, 2011. See Transfer Order, Doc. No. 159. 

Based upon the record and the parties moving papers, the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

hereby GRANTED and Defendants’ designation of Rosenthal is stricken and the report and any related

expert testimony is excluded from trial.

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 161 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 4
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

 See Court’s November 7, 2007 Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 14.

2

 Defendants also requested that the Court: 1) find the April 30, 2008 report noncompliant with

Rule 26(a)(2) because it does not state Ms. Lucast’s complete opinion and the reasons therefore, as

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(I); and 2) issue an order striking the two Lucast reports from the record

and barring Ms. Lucast from testifying in this case. (Id. at 6.)

3

 The Court specifically found that the supplemental reports were submitted prior to depositions

of the experts, there was no evidence that the Government was “sandbagging,” and that the reports were

submitted well in advance of the December 1, 2009 pretrial disclosures deadline. See Judge Stormes

Order on August 29, 2008, Doc. No. 39, at 8-9.

4

 On September 26, 2008, the CCC issued a memorandum finding that the subject property was

entirely within its original jurisdiction. (Latham Reply Decl., Ex. 3.) On October 7, 2008, the CCC

produced a revised memorandum finding that the subject property was partially within its permit

jurisdiction and partially within the permit jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. (Latham Decl. Ex. 7.)

The parties dispute who requested this boundary determination. The Government asserts that

Defendants, by procuring the boundary determination, improperly engaged in discovery after the

discovery deadline had passed. This allegation is contradicted by Lucast, the Government’s own

witness. Apparently, Lucast made a request for a boundary determination as did Defendants’ expert,

Mr. Stedt. After receiving Lucast II, Stedt contacted the CCC and stated that the boundary

determination was no longer necessary. When Lucast discovered that the CCC had abandoned the

project she renewed her request for a boundary determination. (Quinton Decl. Ex. J, Lucast Depo. Tr. at

100-101.)

2 07cv886

Relevant Procedural Background

The discovery period in this case began in September 2007 and closed on August 1, 2008. In

November 2007, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting discovery deadlines and other pretrial

proceedings.1

 Specifically, Defendants’ expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) were due

on or before January 31, 2008. Plaintiff’s expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) were

due on or before April 30, 2008. The deadline for disclosure of any contradictory or rebuttal information

was due on or before May 30, 2008.

A supplemental report (“Lucast II”) was issued by Plaintiff’s expert Nancy Lucast on June 11,

2008 and was received by Defendants via U.S. mail on June 18, 2008. On July 14, 2008 the Defendants

moved to strike the Lucast Supplemental Expert Report,2

 [Doc. No. 29], however, that motion was

denied on August 29, 2008, in an order by Judge Stormes, [Doc. No. 39], who found that the June 18,

2008 report was a timely submitted supplemental report.3

 On November 15, 2008, Lucast issued a

second supplemental report (“Lucast III”), taking into account the October 7, 2008 official determination of the CCC.4

 Defendants designated Coastal Commission Expert Deborah Rosenthal (“Rosenthal”)

on November 28, 2008. Defendants claim that their designation of Rosenthal was necessitated by the

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 161 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 4
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

5

 Specifically, the Court found the late designation of Rosenthal was neither justified or

harmless. The Court found it was not justified because Defendants had ample time and knowledge and

simply failed to make any timely designation. The Court found it was not harmless because the Plaintiff

will be prejudiced by: 1) having to prepare for and take Rosenthal’s deposition; 2) suffer significant

increased costs in completing trial preparation because the pretrial conference had already taken place. 

6

3 07cv886

supplemental reports issued by Government expert Nancy Lucast. Plaintiff moved on December 30,

2008, Doc. No. 75], to exclude Rosenthal’s testimony and expert report and the Court granted the

motion finding the Defendants’ failure to timely designate Rosenthal as an expert witness was neither

justified nor harmless.5

The Defendants’ filed objections to Judge Stormes January 30, 2009 Order on February 13,

2009, Doc. No. 80. Judge Whelan overruled Defendants objections in an Order dated March 10, 2009,

Doc. No. 83, because he found Judge Stormes’ ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.6

Legal Standard

Motions for reconsideration are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Rodgers v. Watt,

722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir.1983) (en banc); Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.

Cir.1987). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the

court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp.

656, 665 (E.D. Cal.1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987).

When filing a motion for reconsideration, Civil Local Rule 7.1.i requires a party to show the “new or

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” 

Discussion

The Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of Judge Houston’s decision allowing Defendants to

designate a California Costal Commission rebuttal expert, which reversed two prior rulings in this case

by Judge Stormes and Judge Whelan denying the late designation as unjustified and prejudicial. The

transcript of the February 3, 2011 proceeding before Judge Houston indicates that after the Court denied

Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the opinions and testimony of Plaintiff’s CCC expert Ms.

Lucast, Defendants’ counsel orally requested leave to file a rebuttal expert report. Ms. Rosenthal’s name

was not mentioned. The Court granted the Defendants’ request because the trial date had been vacated.

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 161 Filed 05/10/11 Page 3 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\Even Numbers - Erin's Cases\14.3 Acres\07cv886.14.3Acres.Order.Recon.wpd 4 07cv886

It is unclear from the record why Judge Houston believed the Defendants’ previous requests for late

designation were denied simply because a trial date was set in this case or even if it was Ms. Rosenthal,

who was not a properly designated expert, which was the subject of the defense request. The record

clearly indicates the Defendants’ two prior requests were given full and fair consideration by Magistrate

Judge Stormes and District Judge Whelan and denied because the late designation was found by both

judges to be unjustified and prejudicial. The Court finds nothing in the record to indicate that the

absence of a trial date somehow mitigated the unjustified and prejudicial impact of Defendants’ late

designation, or served as a proper basis to reverse those prior rulings. Judge Houston did not have the

full record before him for this ad hoc oral motion to submit a rebuttal expert report, and was in error to

the extent the lack of relevant details led to allowing the reintroduction of a previously stricken expert

under the stated circumstances. The Court takes this opportunity to warn defense counsel that any

further attempts to resurrect issues already argued by counsel and decided by this Court will result in the

imposition of sanctions.

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and

Defendants’ designation of Rosenthal is stricken and the report and any related expert testimony is

excluded from trial. All pending motions have now been ruled on by the Court and this case is ready to

proceed to trial. The Pre-Trial Order dated December 22, 2008, [Doc. No. 74], has already been signed 

and entered in this case. As such, the Court hereby schedules a status conference for May 26, 2011 at

10 a.m. in Courtroom 12 before Judge Battaglia to set a trial date for this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 10, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00886-AJB-NLS Document 161 Filed 05/10/11 Page 4 of 4