Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03995-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

OAKLAND DIVISION

MICHAEL ANDRE TODD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A. LAMARQUE, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 03-3995 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 136, 139]

Before the Court are two motions submitted by plaintiff Michael Andre Todd. The first is a

motion to strike defendant R.C. Garcia’s designation of Dr. Adam Goldyne as a rebuttal expert witness

and to preclude his testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 [Docket No. 136]. The

second is a motion to shorten the time for this motion to be heard [Docket No. 139]. For the reasons

that follow, the motion to strike is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part. Dr. Goldyne may be offered

as a rebuttal expert. The expert discovery deadline in this matter will be extended to November 30,

2007, for the sole purpose of allowing the plaintiff greater time to depose Dr. Goldyne, if he so chooses.

The motion to shorten time is DENIED as moot.

The motion cut-off date in this action is December 18, 2007, and this matter is scheduled for a

jury trial to begin on February 11, 2008. See Docket No. 113. Expert designation and discovery was

set forth in the scheduling order as follows:

Plaintiff shall designate any experts by 10/1/07; defendant by 10/1/07; rebuttal disclosure

by NOT SET. Any expert not so named may be disallowed as a witness. No expert will

be permitted to testify to any opinion, or basis or support for an opinion, that has not

been disclosed in response to an appropriate question or interrogatory from the opposing

party. Expert discovery shall be completed by 10/31/07.

Docket No. 113. 

On October 4, 2007, the Court denied defendant R.C. Garcia’s motion to extend the expert report

and discovery deadlines. See Docket No. 132. The defendant sought this extension so that his expert,

Dr. Goldyne, could conduct a mental examination of plaintiff Todd and provide a psychiatric expert

report. On October 17, 2007, the defendant designated Dr. Goldyne as an expert rebuttal witness and

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 148 Filed 10/25/07 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

served Dr. Goldyne’s expert report upon the plaintiff. The deadline for deposing expert witnesses is

October 31st, which has prompted the plaintiff’s present motions. The plaintiff has requested that the

Court set this matter for hearing on a shortened time-frame. 

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires parties to disclose the identity of their expert witnesses “accompanied

by a written report prepared and signed by the witness.” Parties are required to serve their opening and

expert rebuttal reports “at the times and in the sequence directed by the court.” FED. R. CIV. P.

26(a)(2)(c). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides a sanction for not complying. “[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 trial, at a hearing or on a motion any witness or information

not so disclosed.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1). The Advisory Committee Notes clarify that Rule 37(c)(1)

is a self-executing provision for failure to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), without need for

a motion to compel sanction. This is true even in the absence of a showing of bad faith or willfulness.

See Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101,1106 (9th Cir. 2001). Two express

exceptions ameliorate the harshness of Rule 37(c)(1): the information may be introduced if a party’s

failure to disclose the required information is substantially justified or harmless. Id. The burden is on

the party facing the sanctions to prove justification or harmlessness. Id. at 1107. 

 Because the defendant did not provide Dr. Goldyne’s expert report in a timely manner, Rule

37(c)(1)’s self-executing sanction is in effect: the defendant is not permitted to call Dr. Goldyne as an

expert witness in his case-in-chief at trial. 

On the other hand, the designation of Dr. Goldyne as a rebuttal expert and disclosure of his

report is consistent with Rule 26(a)(2)(C). On October 17, 2007, the defendant disclosed Dr. Goldyne

as a testifying rebuttal expert witness. See Docket No. 143, Ex. A. According to this notice, “Dr.

Goldyne is a physician, forensic psychiatrist, and an assistant clinical professor. He is intended to

contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject as Dr. Ronald Roberts, who has been designated as an

expert witness by Plaintiff.” Id. 

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 148 Filed 10/25/07 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

The Court did not set a deadline for disclosure of expert rebuttal witnesses. Therefore, the

default provision of Rule 26(a)(2)(C) applies. Under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), disclosure of experts or expert

reports “intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another

party under paragraph (2)(B),” may be made “within 30 days after the disclosure made by the other

party.” Thus, Dr. Goldyne may be called to testify as a rebuttal witness to rebut or contradict the expert

testimony of Dr. Ronald Roberts.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 24, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03995-SBA Document 148 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 3