Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

ROBERT G. BAKER

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN REQUEST 

FOR A COMPLETE STATEMENT OF 

EXPERT WITNESS

(ECF No. 50)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 7 & 10.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical 

care claim. (ECF No. 11.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s January 29, 2016 “Motion in Request for a Complete 

Statement of Expert Witness.” (ECF No. 50.) Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 

53.) Plaintiff filed no reply. The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff asks that Defendant be ordered to identify his expert witness(es) and 

provide expert disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). The 

motion appears to be motivated by Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which is 

supported by a declaration containing expert opinion testimony of one Daniel F. 

Hartman, M.D., F.A.C.S. 

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 55 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendant responds that, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(D), expert disclosures must

be made “at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial” 

or “within 30 days after the other party’s disclosure” if the evidence is intended solely to 

contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party 

under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C). This provision controls unless altered by Court order or 

stipulation of the parties.

Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s request is premature. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2)(D). There is no trial date in this action, Plaintiff has disclosed no expert 

witnesses, no Court order dictates earlier disclosure, and the parties have not stipulated 

to earlier disclosure.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion in Request for Complete Statement of Expert 

Witness” is HEREBY DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 55 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 2