Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00280/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00280-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAXIION THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP, and DOES

1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

ORDER RE EXPERT DESIGNATIONS

AND REPORTS [DOC. NO. 77]

On June 24, 2008, Plaintiff Vaxiion Therapeutics, Inc.

(Vaxiion”), filed an Ex Parte Application for Clarification Re:

Expert Designations and Reporting [doc. no. 77]. Defendant Foley &

Lardner LLP (“Foley”) filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte

Application the next day, June 25, 2008 [doc. no. 78]. Neither the

Application nor the Opposition contains any citations to supporting

caselaw.

In Vaxiion’s Application, Plaintiff seeks an order that “nonretained experts need not provide reports.” (Ex Parte App. 4.) 

Alternatively, it requests that the Court identify which of

Vaxiion’s non-retained experts must provide a report. (Id.)

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 1 of 8
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 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

Vaxiion states that pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, it identified the following nine nonretained experts: (1) Roger Sabbadini, Vaxiion Pharmaceuticals,

(2) Matt Giacalone, Vaxiion Pharmaceuticals, (3) Scott Pancoast,

Lpath Pharmaceuticals, (4) Neil Berkley, Mpex Pharmaceuticals, (5)

Mark Surber, Aires Pharmaceuticals, (6) Stanley Malogy, Lpath

Pharmaceuticals, (7) Kathleen McGuire, Vaxiion Pharmaceuticals, (8)

William Gerhart, Versus Pharmaceuticals, and (9) Michael Rondelli,

San Diego State Foundation. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff did not

provide expert reports for any of the nine non-retained experts. 

(Id. at 2.) It only submitted reports for “retained experts” in

reliance on the provisions of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. (Ex Parte App. 3.) Vaxiion reads the rule too

narrowly.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires the

disclosure of expert witnesses prior to trial. The rule states:

(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required

by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other

parties the identity of any witness it may use at

trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of

Evidence 702, 703, or 705.

(B) Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or

ordered by the court, this disclosure must be

accompanied by a written report – prepared and

signed by the witness – if the witness is one

retained or specially employed to provide expert

testimony in the case or one whose duties as the

party’s employee regularly involve giving expert

testimony. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A)-(B). The Federal Rules of Evidence

referred to in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) relate to testimony by experts in

general (Rule 702), the basis of expert opinions (Rule 703), and

the disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinions (Rule

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 8
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 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

705). The written expert report must include the following: (1) a

statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis

for the opinions; (2) the data considered by the witness in forming

the opinions; (3) any exhibits used to support the opinions; (4)

the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications

authored in the preceding ten years; (5) a list of all cases in the

last four years in which the witness gave expert testimony; and (6)

the amount of compensation received by the witness for their study

and testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i)-(vi). 

Rule 26(a)(2) identifies two distinct groups of experts –-

those who are “retained” to provide expert testimony at trial and

those who are not. Sprague v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 177 F.R.D. 78, 81

(D.N.H. 1998). These two groups are differently situated, and

accordingly, they are treated differently under the Rule.

One district court has defined a category of “percipient

experts” as “persons who, because of their expertise, have rendered

expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties or

observations pertinent to the issues in the case,” whereas

“retained experts” are “persons specifically designated by a party

to be a testifying expert for the purposes of litigation.” Vines

v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23681, at *13-14 (E.D. Cal.

Mar. 25, 2008). Witnesses serving in the role of retained experts

are often provided with facts or opinions from outside sources,

such as a party’s attorney, which form part of the basis of their

opinion testimony. See Sullivan v. Glock, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 487,

501 (D. Md. 1997). 

“[W]here a witness will testify as to information acquired not

‘in preparation for trial but rather because he was an actor or

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 3 of 8
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 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

viewer with respect to transactions or occurrences that are part of

the subject matter of the lawsuit,’ that witness need not be

disclosed as an expert.” Zarecki v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp.,

914 F. Supp. 1566, 1573 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (quoting Patel v. Gayes,

984 F.2d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 1993)). “[A] party need not identify a

witness as an expert so long as the witness played a personal role

in the unfolding of the events at issue and the anticipated

questioning seeks only to elicit the witness’s knowledge of those

events.” Gomez v. Rivera Rodriguez, 344 F.3d 103, 113-14 (1st Cir.

2003) (citing Patel, 984 F.2d at 217-18). For example, “treating

physicians testifying only to the care and treatment afforded to a

party were intended to be excluded from the requirements of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).” Wreath v. United States, 161 F.R.D. 448, 449

D. Kan. 1995).

Similarly, in Matsuura v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 2007

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7891, at *16 (D. Haw. Feb. 2, 2007), the court was

presented with fourteen “percipient expert witnesses” who were

experts in the fields of law or science, but they were “involved in

the underlying litigation or were eyewitnesses to certain

scientific studies” related to the case, rather than being retained

for the purpose of giving expert testimony at trial. The court

analogized their positions to those of treating physicians who use

their expertise in medicine to treat and diagnose patients, and who

are allowed to testify at trial without giving expert reports. Id.

The witnesses were permitted to testify about their observations

based on personal knowledge, but they could not give opinion

testimony based on information they acquired from other sources. 

Id. at *17. 

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 4 of 8
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 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

 Judge William Hayes weighed in on this issue in 350 W.A. LLC

v. Chubb Group of Ins., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89881, at *40 (S.D.

Cal. Dec. 5, 2007). In that case, the defendant identified

eighteen percipient experts it intended to call to testify at

trial, but who did not provide expert reports. The court found

that the experts were properly identified and reports were not

necessary because they were retained “months or years before the

litigation in this case began for the purposes of investigating

Plaintiff’s original insurance claim.” Id. at *36-37. Because the

experts were employed by the defendant to determine the merit of

the plaintiff’s insurance claims, and not for the purpose of

testifying at trial, they were not “retained experts” from who

expert reports and disclosures were required. Id. at *37-41.

Whether an expert report is required for each of Vaxiion’s

nine “non-retained experts” requires individual evaluations. The

Court must look at the circumstances of each witness and the

substance of the testimony, not merely formulaic titles. See Gomez

v. Rivera Rodriguez, 344 F.3d at 113. (“[T]he triggering mechanism

for application of Rule 26's expert witness requirements is not the

status of the witness, but, rather, the essence of the proffered

testimony.”). Proposed testimony from a percipient witness, who

happens to have scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge, differs from the testimony of retained experts who have

been hired to provide expert opinions based on information provided

to them by trial counsel. See Sullivan, 175 F.R.D. at 501. 

Whether the witness has been “retained” is not the dividing line

for deciding from whom a report is required.

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 5 of 8
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 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

If the proposed testimony of a non-retained expert witness

identified pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(A) will exceed the scope of

the individual’s percipient knowledge and ventures into more

general expert testimony, a report will be required. See, e.g.,

Zarecki, 914 F. Supp. at 1573 (excluding part of treating

physician’s testimony that went beyond his personal observations

and into his opinions on causation and foreseeability not derived

solely from his treatment of plaintiff); Wreath v. United States,

161 F.R.D. at 450 (stating that when a physician testifies “only to

the care and treatment of his/her patient, the physician is not to

be considered a specially retained expert, notwithstanding that the

physician may give testimony pursuant to Rules of Evidence 702,

703, and 705[]”). If the witnesses only provide testimony related

to the actions they took and things they directly learned, they are

not considered specially-retained experts who are required to

provide reports. See Wreath, 161 F.R.D. at 450.

The Court’s Case Management Order for this case provides, in

part, as follows:

The parties must identify any person who may be used to

present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the

Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not limited to

retained experts. The designations shall comply with Rule

26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and be

accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by 

each witness, including in-house or other witnesses providing

expert testimony. 

(Case Management Order 2 (emphasis added).) By its provisions, the

reporting requirement is not limited to specially retained or inhouse experts, as Plaintiff suggests. (Ex Parte App. 3.) Vaxiion

asserts that the Court’s Case Management Order does not provide it

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 6 of 8
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 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

with sufficient guidance to determine whether a witness is an “inhouse expert” for whom a report should be prepared. (Id.) 

Regardless of the label attached to the witness, if Plaintiff

desires to elicit expert testimony from its nine non-retained

experts that goes beyond their personal knowledge or beyond the

time period of their personal involvement, expert reports will be

required. “If the witness’s opinion strays beyond the boundaries

described, the court will have the power to exclude it.” Garcia v.

City of Springfield Police Dep’t, 230 F.R.D. 247, 250 (D. Mass.

2005); see also Elgas v. Colorado Belle Corp., 179 F.R.D. 296, 299

(D. Nev. 1998) (citing Sullivan, 175 F.R.D. at 503) (stating that

if a party tries to introduce expert testimony that was not

properly disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), the proper remedy would

be exclusion of the evidence under Rules 37(a)(3) and 37(c)(1)).

Vaxiion has not provided the Court with sufficient facts to

enable it to determine whether the Plaintiff intends to elicit no

more than “percipient-witness” testimony from the nine individuals

who may have specialized knowledge or whether Plaintiff will

attempt to obtain their opinions based on (1) information

subsequently provided by others, (2) events to which the witness

was not a participant, or (3) other variables which demand pretrial

disclosure in the form of expert-witness reports. Accordingly, the

Court will neither grant the Plaintiff’s request for an order that

it be excused from the requirement to provide expert reports for

non-retained “experts” nor grant the Defendant’s request that the

Court strike the nine non-retained witnesses from Vaxiion’s expert

designations. 

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8 07CV00280 IEG(RBB)

In light of the guidelines set forth, if Plaintiff determines

that expert reports should be submitted for the nine non-retained

witnesses, they must be served on or before July 24, 2008. If any

submitted report creates a need for a rebuttal report, it or they 

may be submitted on or before August 14, 2008. Plaintiff and

Defendant are granted leave to depose any expert witness for whom

an expert report has been submitted pursuant to this order. The

depositions shall be completed on or before August 29, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

July 2, 2008

Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 79 Filed 07/02/08 Page 8 of 8