Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03934/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03934-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

United States District Court

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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MONA ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03934-TEH 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUEST TO SUPPLEMENT 

EXPERT DISCLOSURE

During the hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment on January 18, 

2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Elford, requested that he be allowed to supplement his expert 

disclosures. While the Court tentatively denied this request, it also gave Mr. Elford until 

January 20, 2017 to provide legal authority supporting his request. ECF No. 212. On 

January, 20, 2017, Mr. Elford timely provided such information. ECF No. 213. 

Having reviewed Mr. Elford’s legal authority, the Court is not persuaded. Mr. 

Elford cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(E), which requires the parties to “supplement [expert] 

disclosures when required under Rule 26(e).” However, Mr. Elford failed to cite the rest 

of the rule, Rule 26(e), which requires such supplementation “if the party learns that in 

some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the 

additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other 

parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) (emphasis 

added). Mr. Elford’s other cited cases are consistent the requirements of Rule 26(e). Here, 

where Mr. Elford has not alleged Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure was incomplete or incorrect, 

the requirements of Rule 26(e) have not been satisfied. Thus, the Court’s tentative ruling 

stands. 

///

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-03934-TEH Document 215 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to supplement their expert disclosures is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/23/17 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-03934-TEH Document 215 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 2