Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03611/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03611-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

JUAN and JUANA DOMINGUEZ, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EXCEL MNUFACTURING, INC., 

Defendant. /

No. 09-3611 EDL

ORDER REGARDING EXPERT

DISCOVERY ON INDUSTRY

STANDARDS; CONTINUING TRIAL

AND RELATED DATES

 In its case management order in this matter, the Court bifurcated expert discovery relating to

industry standards and stated that: “Initial expert disclosures on the topic of industry standards shall

be made no later than May 28, 2010. Rebuttal expert disclosures on the topic of industry standards

shall be made no later than June 25, 2010. The deadline for deposing industry experts is July 16,

2010.” Plaintiffs made expert disclosures on May 28, but Defendant did not. Defendant erroneously

understood the Court’s Order to only require Plaintiffs’ initial disclosures on May 28, and that only

Defendant’s rebuttal was required on June 25. 

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel Defendant’s initial expert disclosures, and requested

that the motion be heard on shortened time on June 15 in advance of the rebuttal disclosure deadline

and in time to comply with the July 16 deposition deadline. In response, Defendant has filed a letter

arguing that it misunderstood the Court’s Order, and that Plaintiffs’ motion is unnecessary to resolve

the issue. Defendant’s letter agrees to modify current court deadlines or allow Plaintiffs 30 days to

disclose an expert in response to Defendant’s rebuttal expert. Defendant also asks the Court to

resolve an issue relating to expert costs and service of depositions subpoenas. Defendant states that

it is unavailable for a hearing on June 15.

The Court finds that a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel is unnecessary and that

Defendant’s failure to timely disclose its expert was the result of a genuine misunderstanding of the

Case 3:09-cv-03611-EDL Document 30 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Court’s Order, and hereby Orders as follows:

• Defendant is required to disclose its initial expert report combined with any rebuttal to

Plaintiff’s expert report by June 25, 2010;

• Plaintiff shall have until July 23, 2010 for a rebuttal of Defendant’s initial expert report; 

• The deadline for deposing industry experts shall be extended until August 15, 2010;

• The deadline for filing dispositive motions shall be extended to August 31, 2010 and the

hearing on any such motion shall be no later than October 5, 2010;

• All parties’ initial expert disclosures on all topics other than industry standards shall be made

no later than October 19, 2010;

• All parties’ rebuttal expert disclosures on all topics other than industry standards shall be made

no later than November 2, 2010;

• All expert discovery shall be completed by November 16, 2010;

• The Pre-Trial Conference is continued to January 18, 2010, and Trial is continued to February

14, 2010.

Plaintiff’s request for fees in connection with its Motion to Compel is denied.

The parties are Ordered to meet and confer regarding any outstanding issues relating to expert

costs and the service of related deposition subpoenas.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03611-EDL Document 30 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2