Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY

DISTRICT, a public utility

district, 

Plaintiff,

v.

1442.92 ACRES OF LAND IN ALPINE

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; F. HEISE LAND &

LIVE STOCK COMPANY, INC., a Nevada

corporation; WILLIAM WEAVER; EDDIE

R. SNYDER; and CROCKETT

ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada

corporation,

Defendants.

NO. CIV. S 02-0238 MCE JFM

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Through the present motion, Plaintiff South Tahoe Public

Utility District (“District”) seeks to strike two documents filed

by Defendant Integrated Farms, LLC (“Integrated Farms”) on July

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 403 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 5
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 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

8, 2005. Both are supplementations to the Appraisal Report of

the Heise Ranch, prepared by Arthur Gimmy International and

originally submitted on June 1, 2004. The District bases its

Motion to Strike on several grounds, and most prominently on the

contention that the supplementations are untimely .

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), an expert 1

report like that submitted by Arthur Gimmy International in this

case may supplemented in accordance with the provisions of Rule

26(a)(3), which requires pretrial disclosures to be made at least

thirty (30) days before trial. According to the District, that

supplementation deadline must be assessed in conjunction with the

original October 12, 2004 trial date in this matter, since the

thirty-day period had expired before the Court, by Minute Order

filed September 30, 2004, vacated the original trial date. 

Integrated Farms, on the other hand, expressly premises the

propriety of its supplementations on the contention that the

thirty day pretrial deadline for supplementing expert reports

must be determined, not by reference to the original trial date,

but instead pursuant to the presently set trial date of August

10, 2005. Integrated Farms argues that because its July 8, 2005

supplementations were submitted within thirty days of the August

10, 2005 trial date, they were timely and should be permitted.

In making that argument, Integrated Farms points to the fact that

the Court’s September 30, 2004 Minute Order indicates that

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 403 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Integrated Farms asks the Court to take judicial notice, 2

pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, of the September 30.

2004 Minute Order as well as other documents filed in this case. 

That request is unopposed and is granted.

The District alternatively argues that even if timely, the 3

proposed supplementations offered by Integrated Farms amount to

new opinions not coming within the limited purview of Rule 26(e),

which is intended to address circumstances wherein the initial

disclosure at issue was defective or incomplete and therefore

(continued...)

3

matters set pursuant to the provisions of the Final Pretrial

Order are vacated pending assignment of a new trial date. In

essence, then, Integrated Farms’ position is that even though the

deadline for supplementation had passed before issuance of the

Court’s Minute Order continuing the October 12, 2004 trial, the 2

fact that the trial date was later continued somehow resurrected

that expired deadline and permitted supplementation even though

such supplementation would otherwise not have been allowed. 

Integrated Farms’ position in this regard is, simply,

untenable. As the District points out in its reply memorandum,

the fact that the Court vacated pretrial matters set in relation

to the initial October 12, 2004 trial date “can only reasonably be

construed [with respect to] remaining pretrial deadlines, not

those already lapsed”. (Reply, 3:2-3). Otherwise, completed

pretrial tasks could be started anew, a grossly inefficient and

senseless proposition. Consequently, the District’s Motion to

Strike must be granted on grounds that the Supplementations

proffered by Integrated were untimely, without even addressing the

other reasons advanced by the District as to why the

Supplementations should not be permitted.3

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 403 Filed 08/10/05 Page 3 of 5
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

(...continued) 3

misleading. See, e.g., Akeva LLC v. Mizuno Corp. 212 F.R.D. 306,

310 (M.D. N.C. 2002). In addition, the District contends that

permitting further expert opinion at this late juncture would be

unduly prejudicial because the District would be unable to

properly respond. 

4

This Court is nonetheless troubled by Integrated Farms’

efforts to introduce the additional information encompassed within

its proposed supplementations when, by Integrated Farms’ own

admission, “virtually all the corrections contained in Integrated

Farms’ July 8, 2005 supplementations were contained in Integrated

Farms’ experts’ “surrebuttal” reports filed on July 21, 2004.” 

(Opposition, 3:7-9, restated a second time at 6:6-9). Those

“surrebuttal” reports were already the subject of the District’s

Motion in Limine No. 2, and that motion was granted by the Court

on October 25, 2004 on grounds that those reports were untimely. 

Hence, through the present supplementations, Integrated Farms in

essence seeks to reintroduce the same information already

rejected by the Court as untimely. Although the Court understands

that Integrated Farms makes the ostensible argument that the

reports were permissible as supplementation even if they could not

have been introduced as rebuttal, that argument as stated above

appears virtually indefensible.

While the Court will give Integrated Farms the benefit of the

doubt in accepting its claim that the supplementations were

offered in good faith, and will consequently not award sanctions

against Integrated Farms as requested by the District for having

to bring this motion, Integrated Farms is nevertheless forewarned

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 403 Filed 08/10/05 Page 4 of 5
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 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 4

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h)

5

that any similar attempt to play loosely with the Court’s orders

in the future will not be tolerated and will be dealt with swiftly

and decisively.

In sum, given the foregoing, the District’s Motion to Strike

Integrated Farms’ July 8, 2005 Supplementations to the Arthur

Gimmy International Appraisal Report of the Heise Ranch is

GRANTED. No sanctions, however, will be awarded. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 403 Filed 08/10/05 Page 5 of 5