Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00558/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00558-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY MEDORA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY & COUNTY OF 

SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-0558 EDL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE

DOCUMENTS, WITNESSES,

INFORMATION AND DAMAGES;

GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO EXCLUDE RETAINED

EXPERTS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ALLOW EXPERTS AND

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS 

On July 31, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Documents,

Witnesses, Information and Damages that Plaintiff Failed to Properly Disclose During Discovery,

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude All of Plaintiff’s Retained Experts for Failure to Properly Disclose

Them and to Exclude Documents Plaintiff Produced After the Discovery Cutoff, Plaintiff’s Motion

to Allow Experts and Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. For the reasons stated at the hearing, the

Court issues the following Order. 

1. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Documents, Witnesses, Information and Damages is granted

in part. Although Plaintiff demonstrated a lack of diligence in failing to serve initial

disclosures, the failure to do so was harmless as to some items, though not others. See Fed.

Case 3:06-cv-00558-EDL Document 168 Filed 08/02/07 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

28

2

R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (“A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose

information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as

required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as

evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so

disclosed.”). For example, Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical records and

treating doctors from Plaintiff’s earlier discovery responses and subpoenas, so the failure to

include them in initial disclosures was harmless. Defendants, however, point to nine

witnesses and two documents that were not disclosed until Plaintiff served her

“supplemental/updated” disclosures on May 31, 2007. As stated at the hearing, the failure to

previously disclose the credit card/ATM receipts of Christine Hollander from January 22 and

23, 2005 was harmless and those documents will not be excluded. The citation narratives

and traffic court citations issued to Plaintiff and Christine Hollander will not be excluded if

those documents were produced at Ms. Hollander’s deposition. Defendants also seek to

exclude a handwritten document with a name and phone number that was produced by

Plaintiff on July 18, 2007, long after the discovery cutoff. Plaintiff’s counsel represented

that Ms. Hollander testified about this document in her deposition; Defendants’ counsel

disputed that. In response to the Court’s order to produce the relevant deposition pages by

August 1, 2007, Defendants filed a letter stating that there was no relevant testimony, and

Plaintiff failed to file any response. Therefore, the document is excluded. The failure to

disclose the new witnesses (dispatchers and officers on duty with certain call signs, Gene

Chung, Janet Metzger Fleming, Sharon Goburty, Ohad Cohen, Linda Toschi-Chambers,

Leslie Neuhasu, Sharon Rantfel and Liza Gangi) was not harmless and therefore, they are

excluded. To the extent that the other witnesses on Plaintiff’s late disclosures overlap with

Case 3:06-cv-00558-EDL Document 168 Filed 08/02/07 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

28

3

Defendants’ witness list, Plaintiff’s witnesses will not be excluded. Further, witnesses Tom

Long, Matt Tripp, Peter Scully and the custodian of records for Emergency Communications

are not excluded, but witness Brendan (last name unknown) is excluded. Documents relating

to past lost earnings (e.g., the Slingerland documents) are not excluded. 

2. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude all Non-Disclosed Retained Witnesses is granted in part. 

Although Plaintiff disclosed the name of her police practices expert, he did not prepare an

expert report, and Plaintiff’s argument that the failure to provide a report was excused by her

inability to obtain confidential police officer personnel files from Defendants is not

persuasive. Instead of failing to submit a report at all, Plaintiff’s expert should have prepared

a report based on the documents that had already been produced. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Allow a police practices expert is denied. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow

a medical damages expert is denied. Plaintiff’s argument that her medical condition only

changed on May 31, 2007 to include weakness in her arm that will require surgery is

contrary to her interrogatory response number 6, dated November 25, 2006, stating that

Plaintiff has “pain, numbness and weakness to right arm including hand, elbow and

shoulder.” Burke Decl. Ex. 13. Therefore, Plaintiff knew as of November 2006 that she was

experiencing weakness in her arm, which Dr. Lee had told her in August 2006 would require

surgery. Plaintiff had seven months to retain a medical damages expert, yet failed to do so. 

Further, even if she only knew of the weakness as of May 31, 2007, she had twenty-six days

before the expert disclosure cutoff date of June 26, 2007 to retain an expert or seek

modification by the Court of the deadline. 

3. Documents produced by Plaintiff on June 19 and 22, 2007 after the discovery cutoff date are

excluded. 

Case 3:06-cv-00558-EDL Document 168 Filed 08/02/07 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

28

4

4. Plaintiff may take an additional deposition of Officer Doherty. This deposition may take

place in the afternoon and shall be no longer than three hours. The deposition is limited to

questions regarding Monell discovery that was produced after Officer Doherty’s last

deposition. The Court denies leave to take further depositions of other police officers. 

5. The Court clarifies that “cover charges” constitute OCC complaints of false arrest where the

claim of false arrest is accompanied by allegations of excessive force or other wrongful act

so that the false arrest could be seen as a cover. Defendants stated at the hearing that

production of these complaints is complete, so no further document production on this issue

is required. 

6. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00558-EDL Document 168 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 4