Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01486/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01486-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DAVID GREGORY SINGLETON and

LINDA JOY SINGLETON,

NO. CIV S-04-1486 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FAF,

INCORPORATED, RUTH ANN HAYDEN,

and DOES I through X,

inclusive,

Defendants.

______________________________

FAF INCORPORATED,

Cross-claimant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Cross-defendant.

______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Cross-claimant,

v.

FAF INCORPORATED AND RUTH

ANN HAYDEN,

Cross-defendants,

______________________________

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 7
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 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted.

2 Defendant United States noticed this as a motion to

strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) and Rule 16. However, Rule 12(f)

provides that, upon motion made by a party before responding to a

pleading, the court may strike “from any pleading any

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,

or scandalous matter.” Defendant United States does not

challenge co-defendant FAF’s pleadings in this motion, and as

such, this rule is inapplicable. Rather, a party’s failure to

comply with Rule 16 gives rise to sanctions under Rule 37. See

Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 16(f). 

3 Co-defendant FAF does not notice the motion as a Rule

16 motion, nor do they argue the merits of the Rule 16 motion in

their briefs. However, defendants seek leave to designate an

accident reconstruction expert after the deadline set forth by

this court’s Order, filed Feb. 7, 2006. In order for the court

to grant the request sought by FAF, good cause must be

demonstrated pursuant to Rule 16. As such, the court construes

FAF’s opposition as a request to modify the court’s prior

scheduling order under Rule 16.

4 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant United States’

motion to strike co-defendant FAF Incorporated’s (“FAF”) late

designation of expert liability witness, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure1 37.2 Co-defendant FAF opposes the motion and

implicitly seeks to modify the pretrial scheduling order,

pursuant to Rule 16.3 For the reasons set forth below, defendant

United States’ motion is DENIED, and co-defendant FAF’s motion is

GRANTED.4

BACKGROUND

This case is a personal injury action based upon two

truck/vehicle accidents that occurred on Interstate 80 in

Sacramento County on July 30, 2002. The accident involved a

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 7
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

United Sates Postal Service semi-truck, plaintiff David

Singleton’s pick-up truck, and defendant FAF’s semi-truck driven

by defendant Ruth Ann Hayden. Photographer Gary Harsh, now

deceased, appeared at the accident scene and took over one

hundred photographs of the area, the accident scene, and the

damaged vehicles.

On February 7, 2006, the parties stipulated and the court

ordered that discovery be bifurcated into liability and damages

phases. Pursuant to this order, the expert witness disclosure

deadline was set for April 3, 2006. Supplemental expert witness

disclosures were due by April 24, 2006. The close of discovery

for liability issues was set for July 30, 2006. 

Defendant FAF noticed plaintiff David Singleton’s deposition

in January 2006. However, due to scheduling conflicts, plaintiff

was not deposed until April 27, 2006. During the time leading up

plaintiff’s deposition, counsel for defendant FAF communicated to

counsel for the other parties that defendant’s liability expert

should have the benefit of plaintiff’s deposition testimony when

doing his analysis.

In early April 2006, FAF sought to obtain the photographs

taken by Gary Harsh at the accident scene. However, counsel for

FAF had numerous problems contacting Mr. Harsh’s office, and was

eventually informed that the file on the case could not be

located. Ultimately, counsel for FAF obtained a copyright

release, executed on or about June 12, 2006, to duplicate the

photos purchased by the United States. On June 22, 2006 the

United States produced approximately 100 photos for duplication. 

That same day, the photos were sent to defendant FAF’s liability

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 7
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

expert, Matthew Schwall, Ph.D.. The expert report was

transmitted to defendant FAF’s counsel on July 14, 2006.

On July 20, 2006, defendant FAF made its disclosure of

expert witness Dr. Schwall. Plaintiff initially objected to the

delayed disclosure of FAF’s expert witness, but subsequently

withdrew the objection and agreed to permit Dr. Schwall’s

opinions and testimony. On August 25, 2006, defendant United

States filed the current motion to strike. 

ANALYSIS

A. Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Economic Expert

Rule 37(c) provides that a party that fails to disclose

information relating to expert designation and opinions pursuant

to Rule 26 is not “permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a

hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so

disclosed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). However, Rule 37 also

provides that this sanction is not appropriate where such a

failure to disclose is harmless. Id. As such, the party seeking

exclusion of testimony under Rule 37 must demonstrate prejudice

by opposing party’s failure to disclose. See Paulissen v. United

State Life Ins. Co., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

Defendant United States contends that it is prejudiced by

defendant FAF’s belated disclosure of its liability expert

because (1) it is precluded from any discovery of FAF’s latedesignated expert; and (2) it has already deposed plaintiff’s

accident reconstruction expert and is now precluded, by the close

of discovery, from re-deposing plaintiff’s expert about FAF’s

expert’s opinions. However, FAF has agreed to make their expert

available for disclosure. Further, plaintiff has agreed to

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 09/27/06 Page 4 of 7
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 To the extent that defendant United States asserts that

plaintiff’s counsel is not bound by this agreement, it is

correct. However, if plaintiff subsequently decides not to make

his expert available for further deposition, defendant United

States could bring its own Rule 16 motion in light of the court’s

findings infra. 

5

present his expert for further deposition if the United States so

desires, and agreed that defendant FAF would pay any witness fees

related to such further deposition.5 As such, defendant United

States will not be prejudiced by FAF’s untimely disclosure of the

economic expert. Therefore, defendants’ motion to preclude the

testimony of plaintiff’s belatedly designated economic expert is

DENIED.

B. Modification of the Pretrial Scheduling Order

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to

the party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. 

The moving party may establish good cause by showing “(1)

that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating

a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance

with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 09/27/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

[his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the

development of matters which could not have been reasonably

foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling

conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking

amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that [he

or she] could not comply with the order.” Jackson v. Laureate,

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations omitted).

Defendant FAF has demonstrated good cause to modify the

court’s scheduling Order to extend the liability phase discovery

deadlines solely as they apply to disclosing FAF’s liability

expert. First, FAF was diligent in assisting the court in

creating a workable scheduling order. Second, the delay in

disclosing FAF’s liability expert arose due to the delay in

taking plaintiff’s deposition as well as the unforeseeable

obstacles to obtaining the photographs of the accident scene. 

Defendant FAF should have filed a motion in this court to modify

the scheduling order when it realized that it would not be able

to disclose its expert before the deadline set forth in the

court’s Order. At the very least, FAF should have filed a Rule

16 motion prior to filing its designation and disclosure of the

expert witness. However, because defendant FAF has detailed the

process through which it sought to obtain the photo, and because

it was unclear to defendant FAF when the requisite materials

would be available to the expert such that an expert report could

be disclosed, the court finds that defendant FAF has demonstrated

good cause to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline

to disclose its liability expert.

///// 

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 09/27/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Therefore, defendant FAF’s motion to modify the scheduling

order is GRANTED. Defendant FAF is ordered to make its expert

available for deposition by the other parties to this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2006

 

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01486-FCD-DAD Document 43 Filed 09/27/06 Page 7 of 7