Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02628/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02628-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

FREDDIE FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DENNIS ALLEN SMITH, and DOES 1 through

10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02628 SI

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

STRIKE

Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike defendant’s experts, or alternatively for attorneys fees.

Having reviewed the papers, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that plaintiff’s

motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the May 11, 2007

hearing. For the following reasons, and for good cause shown, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

This is a personal injury action, in which plaintiff alleges that he was struck by defendant’s truck

while crossing the street in Martinez, California. Trial is currently scheduled for June 18, 2007.

Defendant conducted an independent medical examination (IME) on plaintiff on February 27, 2007.

Pursuant to this Court’s order, the parties were to exchange expert reports, including the report of Dr.

Howard Sturtz, who conducted the IME, by March 6, 2007. Defendant missed this deadline, and did

not give plaintiff Dr. Sturtz’s report until March 13, 2007. Plaintiff subsequently took Dr. Sturtz’s

deposition on March 27, 2007. The expert discovery deadline was March 30, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s motion asks the Court to prevent Dr. Sturtz from testifying at trial, because defendant

Case 3:06-cv-02628-SI Document 60 Filed 05/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

In addition to Dr. Sturtz, Defendant also initially identified an accident reconstruction expert.

Defendant has now withdrawn this expert. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant may not call

any accident reconstruction expert and plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s accident reconstruction

expert is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Plaintiff also moves to strike the deposition testimony of Andrew Urban and Dr. William

Birdsong, which defendant took without proper notice to plaintiff. The parties have since stipulated that

these two depositions will be inadmissible. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the deposition testimony

of Urban and Dr. Birdsong will not be admissible at trial and plaintiff’s motion to strike their deposition

testimony is DENIED AS MOOT.

2

filed Dr. Sturtz’s expert report one week late.1

 Plaintiff also complains that Dr. Sturtz’s report was

deficient because it did not indicate whether he has testified in other cases over the past four years, and

whether he has any publications. On March 21, 2007, defendant supplemented the report to include a

list of other cases in which Dr. Sturtz has testified. See Oppo., Ex. C. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides in part:

A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by

Rule 26(a) or 26 (e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule

26(e)(2) is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial,

or a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The determination of whether a failure to disclose is justified or harmless is

entrusted to the broad discretion of the district court. Mid-America Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading

Co., 100 F.3d 1353, 1363 (7th Cir. 1996). In the Ninth Circuit, the following factors are used to guide

the court’s discretion: “1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 2) the court's need

to manage its docket; 3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 4) the public policy favoring disposition

of cases on their merits; 5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Wendt v. Host Int’l, Inc., 125 F.3d

806, 814 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The Court finds that defendant’s one-week delay in providing Dr. Sturtz’s report was relatively

harmless. After receiving Dr. Sturtz’s report, plaintiff had two weeks to prepare for his deposition.

Moreover, on March 16, 2007, defendant offered to waive the discovery cut-off with respect to Dr.

Sturtz, to allow plaintiff to take his deposition at a later date. See Oppo., Ex. D. Defendant also offered

to pay the costs associated with Dr. Sturtz deposition. See id. Plaintiff rejected these offers. Thus, to

the extent that plaintiff suffered any harm from the one-week delay in receiving Dr. Sturtz’s report,

plaintiff could have easily mitigated that harm. 

Case 3:06-cv-02628-SI Document 60 Filed 05/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s

motion to strike or alternatively for attorneys fees. [Docket No. 30]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02628-SI Document 60 Filed 05/07/07 Page 3 of 3