Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01946/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01946-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALKER & ZANGER, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PARAGON INDUSTRIES, dba 

BEDROSIANS, 

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-04-1946 VRW (JCS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REBUTTAL

REPORT [Docket No. 133] AND

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

APPROPRIATE RELIEF [Docket No. 143]

On March 24, 2006, Plaintiff, Walker & Zanger, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), moved to strike Defendant

Paragon Industries, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Supplemental Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Sandra Cogan.

(the “Motion to Strike”). On April 28, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief (the

“Motion for Appropriate Relief”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds both motions

appropriate for decision without oral argument. The Court has previously vacated the June 2, 2006

hearing date in this matter.

For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

These motions present the latest in a series of by now unsurprising disputes between the

parties concerning the timing and scope of discovery and disclosures. The parties have repeatedly

shown their inability to live up to the requirements of the Local Rules of this Court, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the orders of this Court. In particular, the parties have not resolved

between themselves, in good faith meetings between counsel, simple matters that should be resolved

between counsel. Similarly, the parties have exhibited a cavalier attitude toward their obligations to

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 166 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 6
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

1

 The parties agreed to serve initial expert reports on November 21, 2005.

2

 Plaintiff’s offer to extend this deadline one day to review thousands of pages produced on

December 8th is not a reasonable period of time.

2

produce information and to timely make disclosures under the Federal Rules. These motions are no

exception. 

The Court ordered that all discovery, both expert and non-expert, close on December 30,

2005. December 22, 2005 Order [Docket No. 67]. Initial expert disclosures were due November 18,

2005, and rebuttal expert disclosures were due December 2, 2005. Further Discovery Order dated

September 26, 2005 [Docket No. 61].

Plaintiff disclosed Henry Ostberg, Ph.D., as its survey expert, along with his report and

appendices on November 21, 2005.1

 Defendant, whose rebuttal expert reports were due on

December 2, 2005, sought additional documentation underlying Dr. Ostberg’s report by subpoena. 

As is typical in this case, rather than working it out with counsel, Defendant sought documents only

by service of process on Dr. Ostberg. This resulted in additional delay in the production. In light of

the anticipated production, the parties agreed to extend the time for disclosure of rebuttal expert

reports to December 8, 2005. 

Notwithstanding the December 8th deadline for disclosure of the expert witnesses to rebut

Dr. Ostberg, Plaintiff produced additional documents in response to the subpoena to Dr. Ostberg on

approximately December 7th or 8th, December 13th, and as late as January 13, 2006. See Ostberg

Decl., para. 11. Accordingly, many documents were produced on the day, and substantially after the

day, that the rebuttal expert reports were due.

This problem could have been resolved at that point. In light of the schedule for production

of Plaintiff’s expert’s documents, the parties could have agreed to extend the time – for a reasonable

period – for completion of rebuttal expert reports. Alternatively, if one party was dissatisfied with

the schedule, it could have turned to the Court immediately for a resolution. Neither course was

followed. Plaintiff did not agree to extend the deadline a reasonable period of time for Defendant to

serve rebuttal expert disclosures.2

 Defendant, on the other hand, demonstrated a cavalier attitude

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 166 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 6
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

toward the deadlines ordered by this Court. Defendant chose to serve a placeholder declaration of

its rebuttal expert, Dr. Cogan, on January 8th, giving only skeletal opinions. Without seeking a

Court-ordered extension, Defendant later unilaterally submitted a tardy full supplemental rebuttal

expert declaration on January 9, 2006.

Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant’s supplemental expert, Dr. Cogan, a few days later

and asked Dr. Cogan questions about the conclusions in her supplemental expert report. 

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

The Court may, for good cause shown, extend the deadlines in scheduling orders. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(b). Similarly, a failure to comply with a scheduling order may be excused upon such a

showing. 

Defendant had good cause for its failure to serve timely a rebuttal expert report from Dr.

Cogan. Defendant had sought documents by subpoena that Dr. Cogan believed were necessary to

write her rebuttal report. Plaintiff argues that certain paragraphs of Dr. Cogan’s supplemental report

were based on information obtained by Dr. Cogan on or about November 21, 2005, and, therefore,

should have been disclosed on December 8th. Plaintiff’s position is without merit. The opinions

contained in the paragraphs that Plaintiff seeks to strike are intertwined with the other parts of Dr.

Cogan’s opinion – including those opinions that specifically address the documents produced in

December. The documents sought, which were produced on and after December 8, related to both

aspects of Dr. Cogan’s opinions – the part that is subject to the Motion to Strike and the remaining

paragraphs. Defendant had good cause for an extension of the deadline for the entire opinion

because these documents had not been produced as of December 7. While Defendant could and

should have requested complete documentation in a manner that was more likely to result in

production in advance of the rebuttal disclosure deadline, the fact that it chose to use a subpoena

does not show a lack of diligence. 

Plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the delay in its receipt of Dr. Cogan’s supplemental

expert report. It took Dr. Cogan’s deposition after her January 9th report, and questioned her about

its conclusions.

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 166 Filed 06/06/06 Page 3 of 6
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

The parties should have resolved this dispute themselves. Defendant should not have given

itself a unilateral extension to file the rebuttal expert report. Plaintiff should have agreed to an

extension of the rebuttal expert report until the remaining documentation was produced. 

Surprisingly, this agreement was not reached, and the Court is required to resolve this issue and does

so by DENYING the Motion to Strike.

II. MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF

Cleverly styled, this Motion seeks discovery. In particular, Defendant seeks:

1. An order compelling the immediate production of the

remaining unproduced documents that were specifically

subpoenaed and that Dr. Ostberg considered in forming his

opinions, or an order granting Defendant leave to file a special

motion to compel those documents together with a shortening

of time for the briefing and hearing of the motion.

2. An order granting Defendant leave to file, after receipt of all

documents and after opportunity to analyze those documents, a

second supplemental report by Dr. Cogan should she determine

in her own opinion that such newly reviewed documentation

justifies additional supplementation.

3. An order reopening expert discovery for the limited purpose of

deposing Dr. Ostberg after the remaining required documents

have been produced and evaluated.

Plaintiff also seeks exclusion of Dr. Ostberg’s surveys and testimony at the trial. For the reasons set

forth below, this motion is DENIED, without prejudice to any motion in limine that Defendant may

file.

BACKGROUND

Dr. Ostberg prepared his expert report, which was disclosed on November 21, 2005, along

with appendices. He produced additional documents, the last of which were produced on

approximately January 13th. On January 9th, Defendant’s rebuttal expert, Dr. Cogan, produced her

supplemental expert report. Dr. Cogan was deposed a few days later. On March 24th, Plaintiff

moved to strike Dr. Cogan’s supplemental expert report. The instant motion was filed on April 28,

2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 166 Filed 06/06/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

DISCUSSION

Defendant violated this Court’s Order requiring an in person meeting between lead trial

counsel to resolve discovery issues, and a joint letter to the Court describing the issues left

unresolved, before the Court would consider whether a formal motion was necessary. Discovery

Order dated July 27, 2005 [Docket No. 55]. The Motion for Appropriate Relief is therefore

DENIED on this ground and on the following additional grounds. 

Civil Local Rule 26-2 provides that “no motions to compel discovery may be filed more than

ten days after the discovery cutoff.” Defendant filed the Motion for Appropriate Relief long after

this deadline on April 28, 2006 – nearly four months after the close of all discovery.

No good cause for failure to comply with the Local Rule has been shown. The last

production of documents upon which Dr. Ostberg relied was made on January 13, 2006 – three and

one-half months before the Motion for Appropriate Relief was filed. No reason has been given as to

why Plaintiff waited this extraordinary period of time, other than some claim that they relied on the

good faith of their opposing counsel. However, Defendant had no indication during this intervening

three and one-half months that counsel was willing to produce the additional documentation and

agree to yet another rebuttal report from Dr. Cogan. Moreover, and more importantly, by March 24,

2006, Defendant knew that Plaintiff was seeking to strike the supplemental declaration of

Defendant’s rebuttal expert Dr. Cogan. By March 24, 2006, Defendant could not have reasonably

believed that Plaintiff was going to produce additional documents for it to use in yet another

supplemental declaration of the rebuttal expert. 

Plaintiff’s argument that the time limits of Rule 26-2 are not applicable because it is seeking

to compel Rule 26(a)(2)(b) disclosure rather than “discovery responses” is frivolous. The Court set

a deadline for expert disclosures, as well as expert discovery. If parties were permitted to argue that

the failure to provide information upon which an expert relies is not subject to the deadlines of Local

Rule 26-2 because it is “disclosure” rather than “discovery,” the deadlines of this Local Rule would

be nearly meaningless with respect to experts. In any event, the Court would be well within its

discretion to decline to order this “disclosure” so long after the final expert reports have been

prepared on the subject, and it does so here.

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 166 Filed 06/06/06 Page 5 of 6
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

 The Court notes that Defendant has sufficient information from Dr. Ostberg both to prepare

a supplemental rebuttal expert report and to file a motion to strike Dr. Ostberg’s survey evidence as

inadmissible. See Motion to Strike [Docket No. 87].

6

The application to exclude Dr. Ostberg from testifying, and to exclude his surveys, is

DENIED, but without prejudice to the filing of a motion in limine. To the extent that the motion

seeks to strike Dr. Ostberg’s expert disclosures, it is untimely, for the reasons set forth above. To

the extent that the motion is one in limine seeking to exclude certain expert testimony and other

evidence, it should be raised with the trial judge. The Court notes, however, that the record before

this Court does not support either the conclusion that Dr. Ostberg’s disclosures violated Rule 26, or

that Defendant was prejudiced.3

Accordingly, the Motion for Appropriate Relief is DENIED without prejudice to any motion

in limine to exclude Dr. Ostberg from testifying.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2006

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 166 Filed 06/06/06 Page 6 of 6