Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHA WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLD GRINGO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S 

EXPERT REPORT AS UNTIMELY

[ECF NO. 212]

On January 10, 2020, Defendants Old Gringo, Inc. (“OGI”), Old Gringo S.A. de C.V. 

(“OGS”), Ernest Tarut, and Yan Ferry filed their “Ex Parte Application for Leave to File 

Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Report as Untimely.” (ECF No. 212.) Plaintiff filed 

her Opposition on January 14, 2020. (ECF No. 218.) For the reasons discussed in this 

order, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a former designer for Defendants Old Gringo, Inc. (“OGI”) and Old 

Gringo, S.A. de C.V. (“OGS”) (a Western wear manufacturer and distributor and its 

Mexican sister company, together the “Old Gringo Companies”) alleges that the 

principles and officers of the Old Gringo Companies, Defendants Ernest Tarut (“Tarut”) 

and Yan Ferry (“Ferry”), told her in January 2013 that they were giving her a 5% 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 219 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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

ownership interest in the Old Gringo Companies, but in fact, no such interest was 

conveyed. (See ECF No. 1.) This basic allegation underlies the remaining causes of 

action in this case. 

This case was filed on September 28, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The deadline for expert 

disclosures was August 17, 2018 and the deadline for rebuttal disclosures was 

September 17, 2018. (ECF No. 18 at 2.) All other motions to amend or join parties and 

motions in limine were to be filed no later than January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 33 at 4.) 

Pretrial disclosures were due on January 13, 2020 and the parties were to meet and 

confer pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1.f.4.a by January 20, 2020. (ECF No. 179 at 6-7.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel is to provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order by 

January 27, 2020, and the parties are to lodge the proposed pretrial order by February 

3, 2020. (Id. at 7.) The final Pretrial Conference is set for February 17, 2020, followed by 

dates for motions in limine and trial. (Id.) 

Plaintiff first served Defendants with a report from her valuation expert, Joshua 

Vannetti, on or about September 19, 2018. (ECF No. 218 at 2.) Plaintiff served an 

updated report on or about April 24, 2019. (Id.) On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff served 

“Old Gringo, Inc. and Old Gringo, S.A. de C.V., Inc. Supplemental Report in Accordance 

with FRCP 26(e) Fair Market Value Analysis As of November 29, 2019” on Defendants. 

(See ECF No. 212-1 at 2; ECF No. 218 at 3.) 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking leave to file a motion to exclude 

Plaintiff’s December 20, 2019 report, on January 10, 2020. (ECF No. 212.) Plaintiff filed 

an opposition on January 14, 2020. (ECF No. 218.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In the instant motion, Defendants request leave to file a “Motion to Exclude 

Plaintiff’s Expert Report as Untimely,” and also request that “the Court stay the deadline 

for Defendant’s Expert Rebuttal Report until after the Court has ruled on Defendant’s 

proposed motion, or at least until January 20, 2020, which is the 30-day deadline for 

review and rebuttal of an original report, per Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii).” (ECF No. 212-1 at 3.) 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 219 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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

Plaintiff’s Opposition, addresses the substance of the motion that Defendants seek 

leave to file, but does not assert that Plaintiff’s should not be permitted to file the 

motion in the first instance. (See ECF No. 218.) 

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the 

pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 

Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) and 

collecting cases). “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.

In support of their requests, Defendants argue that they could not have possibly 

filed the instant motion before the January 25, 2019 deadline, because they had not yet 

received the expert report they now seek to challenge. (ECF No. 212-1 at 4.) They 

further note that Plaintiff’s late disclosure has placed Defendants “in a difficult 

situation” by disclosing the expert report in question fewer than 30 days before the 

deadline for pretrial disclosures. (Id. at 2.) The Court agrees that Defendants could not 

have brought the instant motion until after they received Plaintiff’s December 20, 2020 

expert report. The Court finds that filing the instant motion on January 10, 2020 was 

reasonably diligent given the unexpected timing of the disclosure and the intervening 

holidays and GRANTS the motion for leave to file a motion after the deadline. Given 

Plaintiff’s lack of opposition, the Court also CONTINUES Defendants’ deadline to submit 

a rebuttal expert report to January 23, 2020. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion as follows: 

1. Defendants may file a motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert report as 

untimely on or before January 24, 2020. Plaintiff shall file her Reply, if any, no later 

than January 28, 2020. 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 219 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv1996-BAS (MSB)

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. Defendants have until January 23, 2020 to provide their rebuttal expert 

report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 219 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4