Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01329/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01329-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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 05CV1329

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON J. PERRY, an individual, Civil

No.

05CV-1329 LAB (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING EXPERT DISCOVERY

EXTENSIONS; AND

(2) IMPOSING DISCOVERY SANCTIONS 

v.

THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company licensed to do

business in the State of California; LUCA

CONSTRUCTION, INC., formerly known as

ADVANCED ANOMALY, INC., a Delaware

corporation licensed to do business in the State of

California; ADMINISTAFF COMPANIES II,

LP, a Delaware limited partnership licensed to do

business in the State of California; RICHARD P.

McWILLIAM, an individual,

Defendants.

On March 16, 2007, the Court held a telephonic discovery hearing regarding plaintiff’s motion

for extensions of expert discovery dates. Judi Sanzo, Esq., appeared for plaintiff. Craig Nicholas, Esq.,

appeared for defendant The Upper Deck Company; Jason Thornton, Esq., appeared for defendant Luca

Construction, Inc. 

Plaintiff did not serve his expert’s report timely and seeks an extension. Defendants object and

request that plaintiff’s expert be precluded from testifying at trial. Both parties submitted letter briefs

Case 3:05-cv-01329-CAB Document 62 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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 05CV1329

directly to chambers. 

Plaintiff’s motion for expert discovery extensions is granted. The Court notes that discovery

dates in this matter have been continued at the parties’ request a number of times. Expert reports were

initially due no later than October 2, 2006. At the request of the parties, the Court continued that date to

January 12, 2007. The date was then further continued, again at the request of the parties, to February

16, 2007. 

Counsel for the parties then stipulated between themselves to continue the initial exchange of

expert reports to March 2, 2007. Counsel did not seek relief from the court-ordered February 16

deadline from the undersigned. On March 2, 2007, defendants served their expert’s initial report

pursuant to the informal stipulation. Plaintiff, however, did not. Ms. Sanzo, plaintiff’s counsel, did not

notify defense counsel in advance that the report would not be forthcoming. It was not until March 9,

2007, that plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to defense counsel addressing the delay, requesting an

extension, and proposing a new schedule. Defendant’s counsel, however, declined to stipulate to further

extensions.

Plaintiff now seeks the Court’s permission to serve the initial report and continue the related

expert deadlines. Ms. Sanzo represented to the Court that she was unable to reach plaintiff’s designated

expert in the weeks before the deadline due to her trial schedule. She was therefore unable to confirm

whether the expert would be providing the report timely. It was not until March 9, 2007, that she was

able to speak with the expert personally and confirm a date by which the report would be ready. Ms.

Sanzo contends that allowing late service of the plaintiff’s initial expert report will not prejudice

defendants because she set the defendants’ expert report, served on March 2, aside. Neither she nor the

plaintiff’s expert have reviewed the report. 

Defendants claim they are prejudiced, because they served their report timely and without any

notice that plaintiff’s expert report would not be produced simultaneously. Defendants argue that the

plaintiff’s late report should not be allowed and plaintiff’s expert should be precluded from testifying at

trial.

Defendants have not demonstrated any substantial prejudice from plaintiff’s late service of the 

expert’s initial report. A refusal to allow service of the report and exclusion of plaintiff’s expert,

Case 3:05-cv-01329-CAB Document 62 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 05CV1329

however, would be extremely prejudicial to plaintiff. It is therefore ordered that the final and complete

report of plaintiff’s expert, in compliance with all the requirements of Rule 26, must be served no later

than March 21, 2007. Rebuttal expert reports must be served no later than April 4, 2007. Expert

discovery must be completed no later than April 16, 2007. All corresponding dates are vacated. All

other dates remain the same.

Further, the Court finds a monetary sanction appropriate. “A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous

piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.’” Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Ms. Sanzo was aware

prior to March 2, 2007, that she had not received her expert’s report and could not meet the deadline. 

Ms. Sanzo provided no explanation for her failure to timely notify defendants’ counsel of her inability to

meet the agreed-upon schedule. This failure resulted in the present motion practice, which would have

been unnecessary otherwise. It is therefore further ordered that Ms. Sanzo reimburse defendants’

counsel in the amount of $500 for the expenses incurred as a result of her failure to comply with the

report exchange date and timely notify counsel of her inability to do so. Payment shall be made to the

firm of Marks, Golia & Finch no later than March 26, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 16, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01329-CAB Document 62 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3