Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05057/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05057-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Nahas, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

City of Mountain View, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 03-5057 JW

CORRECTED ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PRECLUDE

EXPERT TESTIMONY

On July 25, 2005, the Court heard Defendants' Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony. The

Court has determined that Plaintiffs' proposed expert based his proposed testimony on records that

were not created in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). 

Therefore, the report relied on by Plaintiffs' proposed expert and his proposed testimony are

unreliable and will be precluded. This does not, however, bar Plaintiffs from submitting a revised

report in accordance with GAAP and tendering an expert relying on such a report. If Plaintiffs choose

to do so, they must notify Defendants of their intent to file their new report and send a copy of this

notification to the Court. Thereafter, the parties shall meet and confer regarding scheduling any further

discovery. 

During the hearing, Defendants requested that the Court preclude Plaintiffs' expert testimony

relying on non-contemporaneous records. The Court found the existing report defective and now

invites Defendants to seek sanctions accordingly and request costs stemming from Defendants'

preparation of their Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony and any expenses regarding the revised

report. 

Case 5:03-cv-05057-JW Document 154 Filed 08/17/05 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 2

If Plaintiffs decide not to tender expert testimony, Plaintiffs should notify Defendants. 

Defendants should update Plaintiffs of any change in their own intentions to tender expert testimony. 

Dated: August 17, 2005

03cv5057.exptest

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05057-JW Document 154 Filed 08/17/05 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Eric J Sidebotham eric.sidebotham@verizon.net

Louis A. Leone lleone@stubbsleone.com

Patricia De Fonte Patricia.DeFonte@ibslaw.com

Michael D. Martello

Office of the City Attorney

500 Castro Street

Mountain View, CA 94039-7540

Dated: August 17, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/JWchambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-05057-JW Document 154 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 3