Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01445/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01445-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

PAMELA KINCAID, etc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01445-OWW-SMS

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS WILL

KEMPTON, JAMES PROVINCE, AND

DARYL GLENNS’ MOTION TO

EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT

TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE,

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EXPERTS’

REPORTS AND FOR MONETARY

SANCTIONS (Doc. 173)

Caltrans Defendants Will Kempton, James Province, and Daryl

Glenn (“Caltrans”) filed their motion to exclude Plaintiffs’

expert testimony and other evidence, or, in the alternative to

compel production of experts’ reports and for monetary sanctions

on February 15, 2008 (Doc. 173). Thereafter, on March 11, 2008,

the parties filed their joint statement pursuant to Local Rule

251. Defendants City of Fresno, Alan Autry, Jerry Dyer, Greg

Garner, John Rogers, Reynaud Wallace, and Phillip Weathers

(“City”) filed a supplement(s) to the joint statement on March

13, 2008 (Doc. 230 & 231).

//

Case 1:06-cv-01445-OWW -SMS Document 233 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 6
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

The Court has read and considered the original noticed

motion, together with its declarations and exhibits, as well as

the joint statement and supplement(s) to that statement. The

Court requires no hearing nor any further argument and hereby

rules summarily.

It is unfortunate that this Court apparently failed to

adequately communicate its patterns and practices with regard to

discovery disputes of the nature focused upon in the herein

motion. Since this Court held at least four (4) prior informal

telephonic conferences with all counsel concerning deposition

scheduling and the alleged tardiness of one party’s response to

outstanding discovery, it was this Court’s belief that all

parties understood the philosophy behind holding informal

telephonic conferences prior to spending possibly/ probably

unnecessary time, energy, and money putting together pleadings

for issues that could be resolved much more expeditiously. 

Nonetheless, the pleadings are before the Court, so deal with

them we shall.

The Court is aware of the scheduling order of March 7, 2007

(Doc. 117), as well as Judge Wanger’s sincere desire to hold to

the schedule as set forth therein to the extent possible given

the ongoing exigency of the subject matter and position of all

the parties in this lawsuit. That said, things happen. And, a

review of the docket of this case reveals more than the

pleadings:

///

//

/

Case 1:06-cv-01445-OWW -SMS Document 233 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 6
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

DATE DOCS EVENT/FILING

10/17/06 1 Complaint for Declaratory/Injunctive Relief

10/17-24/06 3-34 Parties focusing on Temporary Restraining

Order

10/24/06-

11/22/06

34-80 Parties focusing on Preliminary Injunction

1/12/07 96-98 Defendants file Motion to Dismiss

2/7/07 99 Plaintiffs file First Amended Complaint

2/22/07 108 Plaintiffs file Second Amended Complaint

3/1/07 &

3/7/07

112,

117

Scheduling Conference/Order Re: Scheduling

3/1-30/07 [Parties obviously busy during this period

of time, quieting the pleadings,

stipulating for extensions of time to

answer second amended complaint, preparing

position papers for motion to dismiss,

scheduling case]

3/30/07-

4/12/07

126-

128

Setting of, preparing for, and

participating in a Settlement Conference

with Judge Wanger

6/15/07-

9/28/07

131-

159

Parties focusing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Certify Class; hearing held on 7/30/07;

Class Administration Hearing held on

9/17/07; notice to all Plaintiffs on

9/28/07

12/05/07 164 First discovery dispute of any significance

comes to the attention of this Court

12/6-19/07 166-

170

Series of telephonic discovery dispute

conferences focusing on City’s alleged

failure to produce documents and attend

depositions. Note: Attorney Betts was in

trial in another matter before Judge

Wanger, so conferences had to be

rescheduled. 

2/15/08 173-

179

The subject Motion To Compel filed

2/28/08 182-

228

Motion for Summary Judgment filed and

thereafter listings of filings from all

parties re: Summary Judgment

//

/

Case 1:06-cv-01445-OWW -SMS Document 233 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 6
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

This case is time sensitive, and all parties appear to have

been extremely busy on several fronts since the lawsuit was filed

some seventeen (17) months ago. Obviously discovery has to have

been ongoing while motion practice has been taking place in the

district court. And, to the best of everyones’ ability, it would

appear, compliance with Judge Wanger’s scheduling order has been

attempted. Plaintiffs did disclose their experts on the date

required of October 1, 2007. As set forth in the Joint Statement

(“JS”), the reports mandated by FRCP 26 were not forthcoming as

Plaintiffs were waiting for the documents that were the subject

of the telephonic discovery dispute conferences held with this

Court in December, 2007. Caltrans argues “[b]y [Plaintiffs’] own

admission, the reason for not producing the required reports (an

alleged but unidentified discovery dispute with the City

Defendants) had absolutely nothing to do with any alleged act or

admission by the Caltrans Defendants.” (JS p. 4) While that may

be, it makes little sense to require or expect an expert to

prepare partial reports or a report regarding evidence as to one

defendant, only to be amended then probably amended yet further,

inviting other forms of discovery disputes having to do with

“moving target opinions” by experts, etc. However, the Court

does agree with Caltrans counsel that it was wholly inappropriate

for Plaintiffs’ counsel to “ignore” Caltrans communications of

December 19, 2007 and January 3, 2008 regarding discovery issues. 

(Motion p. 7 and Exhibits 4 & 5) 

What, in the final analysis, is the prejudice? Plaintiffs

opine they have offered “a practical and effective resolution to

the issues raised by Caltrans’ motion...” (JS p. 5) And, they

Case 1:06-cv-01445-OWW -SMS Document 233 Filed 03/19/08 Page 4 of 6
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

argue the City Defendants are agreeable to the resolution. In

fact, the City “elected not to submit any contentions as to this

motion or the disputes therein.” (JS p. 7) Unless or until 

Caltrans submits that, for example, responding to the motion(s)

for summary judgment is made difficult due to lack of experts’

reports, the Court sees no real problem or prejudice with the

resolution proposed by Plaintiffs, to wit, the production of Ms.

Liza Apper’s report on or before April 4, 2008, and to make Ms.

Apper available for deposition on or before May 2, 2008. 

Plaintiffs have withdrawn their second expert, Professor Snow. 

Sanctions

Caltrans argues they should not have been put to the

necessity of filing a motion. Agreed, they should not have been. 

Yet, both parties taking positions regarding this motion are to

blame: Plaintiffs’ counsel should have been more forthcoming

with responses to the letters mentioned above and the concern

discussed during the discovery dispute conferences with the Court

regarding how all remaining discovery was going to be completed

in time for the discovery cutoff deadline of January 31, 2008. 

But, Caltrans counsel should have put together a telephonic

discovery dispute conference, and this matter would have been

resolved earlier and probably with other discovery matters worked

out as well. Again, that is the habit and custom of this Court,

as well as the other Magistrate Judges of the Fresno Division of

the Eastern District. Therefore, the Court will not award

sanctions at this juncture.

//

/

Case 1:06-cv-01445-OWW -SMS Document 233 Filed 03/19/08 Page 5 of 6
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

Conclusion

Caltran’s motion to compel production is GRANTED pursuant to

Plaintiffs’ proposal:

1. Plaintiffs shall provide an expert report from Liza

Apper on or before April 4, 2008;

2. Plaintiffs shall make Ms. Apper available for

deposition on or before May 2, 2008; and,

3. Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01445-OWW -SMS Document 233 Filed 03/19/08 Page 6 of 6