Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_88-cv-01658-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Reports

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATURAL RESOURCES 

DEFENSE COUNSEL, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-88-1658 LKK GGH

vs.

KIRK RODGERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for September 16,

2005, was a “mid-course” discovery conference. Also pending was Friant’s Ex Parte Application

for relief regarding expert data disclosure, filed September 9, 2005. At hearing, the court made

the following rulings.

I. Friant’s Ex Parte Application For Relief Regarding Expert Data Disclosure

Because Friant had not received all data considered by NRDC’s experts, Friant

was granted an extension of time to file supplemental expert reports by Friday, September 23,

2005. Friant understood that the extended date was given to supplement its reports with NRDC

witness information which it had not received prior to the filing of Friant reports.

\\\\\

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1232 Filed 09/28/05 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

2

II. Discovery Schedule

A. Limiting number of Non-Retained Experts and Additional Fact Witnesses

NRDC was concerned that it would not be able to prepare adequately for trial due

to the number of defendants’ proposed witnesses, including Friant’s 19 non-retained experts, plus

72 other potential percipient witnesses identified by Friant, and 47 witnesses identified by the

federal defendants as potential percipient witnesses.

As a means to winnow down defendants’ factual and hybrid witness lists, the

court ordered disclosure of preliminary witness lists. The parties were directed to simultaneously

file and serve an initial disclosure of non-designated expert witnesses by September 23, 2005. 

Supplemental simultaneous disclosures are to be filed and served by September 30, 2005. 

The parties have now filed updated witness lists which indicate a significant

paring down of the number of witnesses. In addition, Friant has further indicated that it has

withdrawn several hybrid (percipient and Rule 26) experts.

B. Non-Retained Expert Witness Reports

In the initial scheduling order, the court defines at some length the difference

between percipient experts, and Rule 26 experts who could be both percipient and Rule 26

designated-for-trial experts. The difference between the two was explained as percipient experts

could testify to historical opinions that were disseminated in the past while Rule 26 experts are

persons who formulate opinions for the purposes of the litigation. Of course, it is possible that

one person could be both. The court was not in a position at hearing to determine the precise

status of each person listed. Rather, if a percipient expert attempts to give a present opinion, and

no report was filed for that witness, Judge Karlton will assess what, if any, ramifications will

flow from the violation of Rule 26(a)(2)(B). 

C. Duration of Depositions

After the parties meet and confer, plaintiffs agreed to produce their experts for

deposition for one seven hour day for each set of defendants, for a total of two days. If any party

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1232 Filed 09/28/05 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

3

seeks relief from the seven hour each limit, the undersigned will be available by telephone during

the deposition time period.

D. Numbering of Deposition Exhibits

The parties agreed to use a block system of numbering so that each witness will be

designated a sequential block of numbers to be used by all parties in connection with that

witness. Of course, exhibits utilized in previous depositions need not be renumbered. The

purpose of this numbering system is to not have the same exhibit identified by numerous exhibit

numbers.

E. Production of Documents at Depositions

All parties agreed to a shortened time of 15 days for noticing a deposition that

includes a request for production of documents.

F. Setting Dates of Depositions

The parties were ordered to meet and confer the week of September 26, 2005, if

not sooner, to set dates for depositions.

G. Production of Documents For Which Claim of Privilege Withdrawn by Friant

Unless otherwise specified in the prior order, and except as referenced in Friant’s

September 27, 2005 Request for Clarification (which will be the subject of a separate order), all

non-privileged documents shall be produced by Friant forthwith.

H. Extension of Discovery Cutoff Regarding Deposition Matters

Discovery cutoff for deposition issues shall be extended to December 12, 2005. 

No other motion dates are extended.

Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/28/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

NRDC1658.exp

Case 2:88-cv-01658-JAM-GGH Document 1232 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 3