Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05481/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05481-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACOB PARENTI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.14-cv-05481-BLF (SVK)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN 

PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE NON-RETAINED EXPERTS

Re: Dkt. No. 76

Plaintiffs, the Estate of Jacob Parenti, Mr. Parenti’s minor son, and Mr. Parenti’s mother 

(“Plaintiffs”) assert violations of federal and state law by Monterey County, Sheriff Scott Miller, 

and Deputy Collins (“County Defendants”), as well as California Forensic Medical Group and Dr. 

Taylor Fithian (“CFMG Defendants”). On March 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude 

expert testimony of County Defendants and CFMG Defendants in which Plaintiffs asked the Court 

to (1) limit the CFMG Defendants to one retained expert on the topics of cause of death and 

adequacy of medical care, (2) exclude inadmissible opinions of experts retained by the CFMG 

Defendants and the County Defendants, and (3) prohibit testimony by CFMG Defendants’ nonretained experts who were not adequately disclosed as required by Rule 26. ECF 76. 

On May 3, 2017, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion as 

it related to retained experts of both County and CFMG Defendants. The Court referred the issue 

of whether two of CFMG Defendants’ non-retained experts, Julie Kelly, PA-C and Delmar 

Greenleaf, M.D., should be excluded because of CFMG Defendants’ failure to comply with 

Rule 261disclosure requirements for non-retained experts. ECF 87. Having reviewed the motion 

and for the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that the District Court grant 

 

1 All references to Rules are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless noted otherwise. 

Case 5:14-cv-05481-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/10/17 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs’ motion in part and limit the testimony of Kelly and Greenleaf as set forth below. 

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On September 2, 2016, the District Court entered a Case Scheduling Order setting an 

expert disclosure deadline of October 22, 2016, a rebuttal expert disclosure deadline of November 

22, 2016, and an expert discovery cutoff of January 17, 2017. ECF 61. On October 21, 2016, 

CFMG Defendants served their expert witness disclosures pursuant to Rule 26. 

CFMG Defendants disclosed five retained experts and twelve non-retained experts. Their 

listing of non-retained experts identified only each expert’s name, degree, and address. ECF 76-1 

at 90-94. 

On November 17, 2016, the Court continued the expert disclosure deadline from 

November 22, 2016 to January 18, 2017 and continued the last day for expert depositions from 

January 17, 2017 to August 17, 2017. ECF 64. 

Plaintiffs and CFMG Defendants met and conferred regarding CFMG Defendants’ expert 

disclosure. Plaintiffs identified, among other objections, that CFMG Defendants’ list of nonretained experts failed to provide the information required under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), including a 

summary of facts and opinions. On January 11, 2017, CFMG Defendants served an amended 

disclosure providing additional, albeit limited, information regarding the expected testimony of the 

twelve non-retained witnesses, including Kelly and Greenleaf. ECF 76-2 at 37-40. CFMG

Defendants disclosed Kelly and Greenleaf as follows: 

Julie Kelly, PA-C, c/o CDCR Avenal State Prison, P.S. Box 

39, Avenal, CA 93204; (559) 386-0587. Ms. Kelly will testify 

regarding authentication, interpretation and other issues pertaining 

to her treatment records and treatment related to Mr. Parenti in 

connection with his health care at Avenal State Prison. 

Delmar Greenleaf, M.D., c/o CDCR Avenal State Prison, 

P.O. Box 39, Avenal, CA 93204; (559) 386-0587. Dr. Greenleaf 

will testify regarding authentication, interpretation and other issues 

pertaining to his treatment records and treatment related to Mr. 

Parenti in connection with his health care at Avenal State Prison. 

Plaintiffs, in their motion to exclude filed March 30, 2017, argue that Kelly and Greenleaf 

should be stricken because the CFMG Defendants’ disclosures do not satisfy Rule 26. ECF 76 at 

Case 5:14-cv-05481-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/10/17 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

23-25. In opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, CFMG Defendants defend only their retained experts 

and do not offer a response to Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the insufficient Rule 26 disclosures 

of Kelly and Greenleaf. See generally ECF 80.2 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A party must disclose to other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to 

present expert testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A). “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by 

the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report . . . if the witness is one retained 

or specially employed to provide expert testimony . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). However, in 

cases where a full report is not required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), a party is required to disclose 

the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present 

evidence . . . [and] a summary of the facts and opinions to which the 

witness is expected to testify. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). 

The Advisory Committee Notes explain that Rule 26(a)(2)(C) mandates “summary disclosures of 

the opinions to be offered by expert witnesses who are not required to provide reports under Rule 

26(a)(2)(B) and of the facts supporting those opinions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s 

note to 2010 amendment (noting that physicians or other health care professionals are common 

examples of witnesses exempt from Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s written report requirement); see Goodman 

v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) (treating physicians are 

exempt from Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s written report requirement to the extent that their opinions were 

formed during the course of treatment). 

If a party fails to disclose the facts and opinions to which non-retained experts would 

testify, that party has the burden to show “the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c); Goodman, 644 F.3d at 826. In considering whether to exclude testimony, 

Rule 37 requires a court to consider the harm, if any, caused by the failure to comply, and provides 

alternative, lesser sanctions “instead of” exclusion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); Pineda v. City & Cty. 

 

2

The Court notes that CFMG Defendants, in the Declaration of Peter G. Bertling, suggest that 

their disclosures are sufficient as compared to Plaintiffs’ disclosures. ECF 80-1 at 7. This 

argument is unpersuasive and improperly raised in a declaration in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-

5(b). Civ. L. R. 7-5(b) (“An affidavit or declaration may contain only facts, must conform as 

much as possible to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), and must avoid conclusions and 

argument.”). 

Case 5:14-cv-05481-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/10/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

of San Francisco, 280 F.R.D. 517, 520 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“Limiting the automatic sanction to 

violations ‘without substantial justification’ coupled with the exception for violations that are 

‘harmless,’ is needed to avoid unduly harsh penalties in a variety of situations.”). 

III. ANALYSIS 

The Court finds that CFMG Defendants’ supplemental disclosures of Kelly and Greenleaf 

do not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) because the disclosures, even after supplementation, do not 

contain a summary of the facts and opinions to which Kelly and Greenleaf will testify. The 

disclosure required for non-retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is “considerably less extensive 

than the report required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 

2010 amendment. However, the high level summary provided by CFMG Defendants provides 

only the most modest description imaginable (e.g., “authentication” and “interpretation”) along 

with a catchall category (“other issues”) that does nothing to narrow the universe on which Kelly 

and Greenleaf may testify. These descriptions do not, by themselves, satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(C). 

In its opposition to Plaintiffs’ original motion, CFMG did not address Plaintiffs’ argument 

regarding non-retained experts, much less offer any argument as to why its lack of compliance 

with Rule 26 is “substantially justified” or “harmless,” which could excuse it from the sanction of 

exclusion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The Court cannot speculate as to whether the failure to 

properly disclose Kelly and Greenleaf was substantially justified, but the failure to properly 

disclose is not harmless, particularly in light of the number of non-retained experts disclosed by 

CFMG Defendants. Absent the disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Plaintiffs cannot 

make an informed decision on whether they should depose Kelly and Greenleaf. If Plaintiffs 

choose to depose Kelly and Greenleaf, their ability to prepare for and conduct a meaningful 

deposition is undermined by not knowing in advance Kelly’s and Greenleaf’s opinions and the 

main facts on which those opinions are based. 

Although CFMG’s failure to timely comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is neither substantially 

justified nor harmless, and Plaintiffs’ objections have merit, the Court nonetheless will not impose 

the harsh sanction of excluding Kelly and Greenleaf entirely from testifying at trial. Given the 

recent order by this Court and the fact that expert depositions are just getting underway, the Court 

Case 5:14-cv-05481-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/10/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

limits Kelly’s and Greenleaf’s respective testimony as set forth below. 

Kelly: Kelly may testify only regarding the authentication and interpretation of her 

relevant treatment records of and relevant communications with decedent, Jacob Parenti, or any 

other Plaintiff.

Greenleaf: Greenleaf may testify only regarding the authentication and interpretation of 

his relevant treatment records of and relevant communications with decedent, Jacob Parenti, or 

any other Plaintiff. 

Neither Kelly nor Greenleaf may offer testimony regarding any “other issues pertaining to 

. . . treatment records and treatment related to Mr. Parenti in connection with his health care at 

Avenal State Prison.” 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court, in the exercise of its discretion, 

enter an order limiting the expert testimony of Julie Kelly, PA-C and Delmar Greenleaf, M.D. as 

directed above. 

SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: May 10, 2017

SUSAN VAN KEULEN 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:14-cv-05481-BLF Document 88 Filed 05/10/17 Page 5 of 5