Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

1Plaintiffs raised this issue in a letter brief dated October 13, 2005 (Docket No. 723). Defendants

responded in a letter brief dated October 20, 2005 (Docket No. 727).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRONTEXACO CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO EXTEND EXPERT

DISCOVERY DEADLINES

By letter briefs,1the parties bring before the Court a dispute over the expert discovery deadlines in this

matter. Under the current deadlines, expert designations are due on October 31, 2005, and expert discovery

must be completed by November 30, 2005. Plaintiffs request a two-month extension for all expert discovery.

In the alternative, plaintiffsseek a two-month continuance ofthe deadlines fortheir environmentaland corporate

structure/agency experts. The Court DENIES plaintiffs’ request. 

Plaintiffs request an extension fortwo reasons. First, plaintiffs contend that, with the current December

16, 2005, deadline for non-expert discovery, they do not have enough resources to conduct their expert

discovery by the current deadlines. Second, plaintiffs allege that they are still awaiting responses to their final

round ofdiscovery, which they propounded on October 10, 2005, and which covers materialthat their experts

need.

The Court agrees with defendants, however, thatplaintiffs have knownofthe environmentaland agency

issues in this case since its inception more than six years ago. Further, plaintiffs have known the expert

discovery deadlines since they were imposed 16 months ago. To the extent that plaintiffs have not been able

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 728 Filed 10/25/05 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

to gather the necessary information for their experts, that failure must be attributed to lack of prioritization,

rather than a lack of opportunity.

Plaintiffs have had ample time to collect the information needed by their experts. Accordingly, their

request for a two-month extension is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 728 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2