Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01218/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01218-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN CRANE-McNAB, LLC; BERT )

CRANE ORCHARDS, L.P.; MARY )

CRANE COUCHMAN TRUST; and )

MARY CRANE COUCHMAN FAMILY )

PARTNERSHIP, L.P., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) 

)

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:08-cv-01218-LJO-SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED ANSWER

(Doc. 60)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL AND

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(Doc. 59)

Defendant’s motions came on regularly for hearing on December

18, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 before the Honorable

Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. Wiley R.

Driskell, Esq., of Campagne, Campagne & Lerner appeared on behalf

of plaintiffs. Roger S. Matzkind, Chief Civil Litigator, Merced

County Counsel, appeared on behalf of defendant.

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, upon review of the pleadings for both

motions, including the joint statement re: discovery disagreement

(Doc. 63), and upon further consideration of oral argument

presented at hearing, the Court rules as follows:

A. Motion For Leave to File Amended Answer ~ GRANTED, to be

filed within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order.

Plaintiffs’ counsel all but acknowledged at hearing they had

no real objection to the amendment save and except it is too little

1

Case 1:08-cv-01218-WBS -SMS Document 65 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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

too late. Plaintiffs’ opposition (Doc. 61) does, however, mention

the liberality with which the court often allows amendments,

arguing that the requesting party should also be seeking an

amendment to the case management schedule. This Court accepted, by

implication, the lack of need of amending the scheduling order

inasmuch as Defendant is merely correcting an error in its original

answer as to ownership of the real property in question.

The Court would have considered an award of fees and costs as

sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel for the necessity of

requiring Defendant to file and argue this motion to amend but for

the wholesale waste of the parties’ and the Court’s time in having

to deal with Defendant’s second motion, the motion to compel.

B. Motion to Compel Complete and Proper Disclosures Pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and Request for

Sanctions: Precluding Plaintiff From Producing Any Evidence

Regarding Damages or Using Any Undisclosed Witness and Monetary

Sanctions ~ DENIED in its entirety. 

Defense counsel seeks evidence preclusion based on Plaintiffs’

to date undisclosed damages figures. While it is obvious Rule

26(a)(1) includes production of damage figures, if known, it is

also well known and well accepted generally by, between and among

counsel working collegially that damages estimates often depend

upon expert appraisal and analysis. Plaintiffs’ counsel has

informed defense counsel in various communications that, indeed,

their diminution of value claim will be the subject of expert

opinion testimony from an appraiser, declared as an expert at the

appropriate time.

// 

2

Case 1:08-cv-01218-WBS -SMS Document 65 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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

The expert disclosure deadline is presently set for April 5,

2010. The Court trusts that Plaintiffs’ expert’s report, submitted

with the designation in a timely manner, will include all the data

and information, opinions and conclusions that FRCP 26(a)(2), (A)

and (B) require.

While Defendant’s counsel may be eager to evaluate the case

for his client, it is also a fact that a settlement conference, at

which most assuredly damages will be an issue, is not set to take

place, if at all, before the undersigned on September 13, 2010. 

Further, if defense counsel is correct that he is dealing with

inefficient, ineffective legal counsel on the other side, counsel

who are not prosecuting their case professionally and by the rules,

Defendant’s counsel will have every opportunity to showcase

Plaintiffs’ lack of ability to prove their claims upon a filing of

a dispositive motion, the deadline for which is not until July 21,

2010, but which may be brought at any time.

Borrowing Judge O’Neill’s language from his order denying

Defendant’s second motion to dismiss (Doc. 28 ), “...the complaint

is specific enough to apprise the defendant of the substance of the

claim being asserted.” See page 9, lines 13-14. Indeed, there

appear to be sufficient witnesses disclosed on both sides as well

as documents to be shared and analyzed to keep counsel busy while

the final coup de grace, damages, is either calculated by an expert

and timely disclosed.....or not.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-01218-WBS -SMS Document 65 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 3