Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01047/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01047-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

640 OCTAVIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KARL-HEINZ PIEPER,

Defendant. /

No. C 18-01047 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION 

TO EXCLUDE 

EXPERT TESTIMONY

INTRODUCTION

In this landlord-tenant dispute, defendant moves to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s

expert witness. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s expert is excluded.

STATEMENT

The background of this action is set forth in a prior order (Dkt. No. 70). In brief,

defendant Karl-Heinz Pieper has lived in Apartment 3 of 640 Octavia Street, a building owned

by plaintiff 640 Octavia, LLC, since 1993. In 2014, defendant’s roommate, JM, moved into the

apartment. JM now readily admits that throughout 2017 he regularly had approximately twenty

theretofore strangers met online over to his apartment for sex on a weekly basis, yet the reason

for the frequent visitors remained a mystery to the landlord. While the parties generally agree

that a large number of guests visited defendant’s unit throughout 2017, they sharply dispute the

extent to which JM and his visitors engaged in unlawful or threatening conduct in the building

(ibid.). 

Case 3:18-cv-01047-WHA Document 128 Filed 03/14/19 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

Plaintiff initiated this action in February 2018 seeking injunctive relief and damages. A

May 2018 case management order set a schedule for this case, including deadlines for expert

discovery and a March 25 trial date. Defendant now moves to exclude the testimony of

plaintiff’s expert witness, Ron Martinelli (Dkt. Nos. 1, 39, 87). This order follows full briefing

and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

1. CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER.

The case management order herein required the parties, by November 23, 2018, to

“serve a list of issues on which it will offer any expert testimony in its case-in-chief (including

from non-retained experts).” The order explained that this was “so that all parties will be timely

able to obtain counter-experts on the listed issues and to facilitate the timely completeness of all

expert reports” and warned that “[f]ailure to so disclose may result in preclusion.” The same

order required the parties to disclose “full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any issue on

which a party has the burden of proof” by December 21, 2018 (Dkt. No. 39). Plaintiff missed

both deadlines, wholly failing to provide a list of topics upon which it would produce an expert

and failing to produce an expert report until January 4. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s expert

report was therefore untimely and should be excluded. This order agrees.

Trial is set to begin on March 25. Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to meet the

case management order’s November 23 and December 21 deadlines. Rather, he argues that the

untimeliness of his disclosures should be excused either because (1) defendant’s counsel also

failed to meet the November 23 deadline, (2) plaintiff’s counsel discussed an extension of the

December 21 deadline to disclose expert reports with defense counsel and defense counsel did

not object, or (3) defendant failed to raise the issue until after the close of expert discovery,

thereby belying any claim of prejudice. None of these arguments has merit.

First, the record does not support plaintiff’s claim that defendant also failed to meet the

November 23 deadline to disclose a list of issues on which he would offer expert testimony. 

Defense counsel has submitted a declaration and proof of service demonstrating that he mailed

defendant’s disclosure on November 21 (Dkt. No. 87-1 ¶ 16, Exh. 7; Dkt. No. 91-1 ¶ 2, Exh. 1). 

Case 3:18-cv-01047-WHA Document 128 Filed 03/14/19 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

That plaintiff’s counsel never received defendant’s disclosure fails to demonstrate that it was

never sent.

Second, the case management order made clear that “[c]ounsel may not stipulate around

the foregoing dates without Court approval” (Dkt. No. 39 at 4). Accordingly, even if the parties

had agreed upon an extension of the deadlines for expert disclosures, that would not have

excused plaintiff’s failure to meet the dates set forth in the scheduling order. In any event,

plaintiff’s counsel admits that “no exact date was agreed upon for the disclosure date” and that

he “mistakenly considered the issue resolved” (Dkt. No. 88 at 4). 

Third, that defendant did not file the instant motion to exclude until January 28, after the

close of expert discovery, is irrelevant to the untimeliness of plaintiff’s disclosures. Although

plaintiff’s counsel complains that he would have “immediately filed a motion seeking leave”

had he known that defendant intended to file the instant motion, he acknowledges that he knew

in early January that he had blown the December 21 deadline (id. at 4–5). The prudent course

would have been to seek relief from the scheduling order immediately upon learning that he had

“mistakenly relayed the January 4, 2019 date to Dr. Martinelli as the deadline to finalize his

report” (id. at 4). 

In sum, plaintiff has failed to show good cause for his failure to timely make the expert

disclosures required by the case management order herein. Exclusion of Martinelli’s report is

warranted on this basis alone. Nevertheless, this order concludes that Martinelli’s report should

also be excluded under the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

509 U.S. 579 (1993) and FRE 702, as now discussed. 

2. DAUBERT CHALLENGE.

It is the trial court’s responsibility to ensure “that an expert’s testimony both rests on a

reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,

509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). In making this determination, the judge must make “a preliminary

assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is . . . valid” and

“whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Id. at

592–93. Courts must focus on whether (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,

Case 3:18-cv-01047-WHA Document 128 Filed 03/14/19 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

(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has

applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. FRE 702. When an expert

meets this threshold, “the expert may testify and the [fact-finder] decides how much weight to

give that testimony.” Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir. 2010).

Ron Martinelli, plaintiff’s hired expert, opines that JM engaged in prostitution. As an

initial matter, this is not an instance in which “the expert’s scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a

fact in issue.” FRE 702(a). Martinelli’s report, moreover, is fundamentally flawed in that he

relies solely on his experience to explain the conclusions he drew from the discovery in this

case without explaining why and how he came to his conclusions. While an expert may rely on

his experience in making conclusions, and defendant does not challenge Martinelli’s experience

studying and investigating prostitution, “[i]f the witness is relying solely or primarily on

experience, then the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached,

why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably

applied to the facts.” FRE 702 Advisory Committee Note. “The trial court’s gatekeeping

function requires more than simply ‘taking the expert’s word for it.’” Ibid. (citation omitted).

Because Martinelli’s report provides insufficient rationale for his conclusions, plaintiff’s expert

engages in inadmissible ipse dixit. The report is therefore excluded under FRE 702.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s expert witness is excluded. At trial, however,

defendant may not argue that plaintiff has failed to present expert evidence that prostitution was

underway. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-01047-WHA Document 128 Filed 03/14/19 Page 4 of 4