Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILLER et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C02-02118 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT IBM’S

OBJECTIONS TO MAY 18 AND MAY 23,

2006 ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JAMES

Pending before the Court are Defendant International Business Machines Corporation’s (“IBM”)

Objections to Judge James’s May 18 and May 23, 2006 Orders. In those Orders, Judge James denied

IBM’s Motion to bar the testimony of Plaintiff Ralph Miller’s expert witnesses, and denied IBM’s

Motion for Reconsideration of that ruling. IBM now objects to Judge James’s denial of their request

for exclusion, arguing that the ruling is inconsistent with the Court’s prior Orders requiring Plaintiff to

provide expert discovery, and does not comply with the mandatory exclusion provisions of Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) and 37(c)(1). 

The Court has reviewed IBM’s Motions that Judge James’s addressed in her May 18 and 23

Orders, and has fully considered IBM’s objections. The Court finds that IBM has failed to present any

persuasive reason causing the Court to overrule Judge James’s denial of IBM’s Motion. Particularly,

the Court agrees with Judge James’s ruling that full exclusion of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses is not

warranted. The Court further agrees that, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

discovery orders, limiting Plaintiff’s use of expert testimony to information that was disclosed in their

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 583 Filed 06/23/06 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

reports is a reasonable sanction. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES IBM’s Objections (Doc. #551)

in their entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 583 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2