Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02416/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02416-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

 On October 23, 2007, the court granted Realty World’s application to shorten time to

hear the motion.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ATTEBERY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2416 WBS EFB

vs.

PLACER SIERRA BANK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This matter was before the undersigned on October 29, 2007, for hearing on the motion

to enlarge time for designation of experts, filed by defendant Realty World Cool Country

Properties, LLC (“Realty World”), on October 19, 2007.1

 Alice Powers appeared as counsel for

defendants. John W. Jefferson appeared as counsel for plaintiff. Having considered the moving

and opposing papers and oral argument, the motion is granted in part, and denied in part. 

I. BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding on the complaint filed October 31, 2006. Plaintiff alleges

claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq., as well as other California

Case 2:06-cv-02416-WBS-EFB Document 38 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 7
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

statutes and general tort theories of liability. 

Plaintiff, a disabled person, has named as defendants Placer County Sierra Bank (“Placer

Bank”), James M. Stanaway (“Stanaway”), and Realty World, as defendants. Each defendant

has some legal relation to the Placer Bank property in Cool, California, where plaintiff alleges he

sustained injuries due to the improper placement and maintenance of a sign adjacent to the

disabled parking space in the parking lot. Defendant Stanaway owns the Placer Bank parking

lot, and Realty World installed the sign. 

The initial pretrial scheduling order in this case issued on April 10, 2007, and set July 20,

2007, as the deadline for disclosure of experts and expert reports in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(2). The order further provided that discovery was to be completed by September 28,

2007. The order directed that requests to modify dates other than the final pretrial conference or

trial were to be directed toward the undersigned. Accordingly, on May 16, 2007, the

undersigned granted the parties’ stipulated proposed order in part, extending the expert

disclosure deadline to September 20, 2007, and the discovery deadline to November 28, 2007. 

Despite the extension of these deadlines, defendant Realty World failed to timely

disclose its experts and produce corresponding reports. Counsel for defendants, Charles O.

Thompson, has submitted a declaration, averring that his office failed to calendar the new

deadline, and that he was out of town due to a family illness when the deadline passed. See

Declaration of Charles O. Thomas (“Thomas Decl.”), at ¶ 4. Mr. Thompson further attests that

once he became aware of the missed deadline, he sought the agreement of the other parties to

allow Realty World’s late designation. Id., at ¶ 5. On September 28, 2007, Realty World

disclosed two experts – an ADA expert and Dr. Edward Younger, an orthopedic surgeon

previously designated by the other defendants, but from whom no expert report has yet been

filed. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 5:1-5; Exh. F thereto. Realty World argues that simply using the same

surgeon already designated by other defendants does not prejudice the plaintiff. At oral

argument on this motion, it became apparent that it is necessary intertwined with a motion

Case 2:06-cv-02416-WBS-EFB Document 38 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 7
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

noticed for hearing on November 14, 2007, that raises the question of whether the other

defendants properly designated the experts they have identified. Thus, even if Realty World is

placed in the same position as the co-defendants, it remains to be determined whether any

experts have been timely and properly disclosed by any of the defendants .

Based on a review of the file, it appears that no reports by Dr. Younger have been filed

due to a disagreement between the parties regarding a Rule 35 independent medical examination

(“IME”) of plaintiff that Dr. Younger was to conduct. In particular, defendant Stanaway has

calendared for hearing on November 14, 2007, a motion for an order compelling the Rule 35

exam and permitting Dr. Younger to testify at trial as a properly disclosed expert. Although

defendants Stanaway and Placer Bank timely disclosed Dr. Younger as a medical expert, they

did not timely file the accompanying Rule 26(a)(2) expert report. In his moving papers for the

November 14, hearing, defendant Stanaway argues that the report was not filed based on an

agreement with plaintiff’s counsel that the IME could occur without a motion. Defendant

Stanaway claims it anticipated filing its report following the IME. Plaintiff contends that,

although he agreed to allow defendant Stanaway’s expert – Dr. Younger – to conduct the IME

without first filing a motion, he did not intend such stipulation to waive the expert disclosure

deadline. The court will reserve ruling on defendant Stanaway’s motion until the November 14,

hearing, and its ruling on the present motion shall be further informed thereby. 

Unlike defendants Stanaway and Placer Bank, Realty World failed to even disclose its

medical expert (or any other expert) by the September 20, 2007, deadline. As discussed more

fully below, its counsel blames this failure on his secretary, and his absence from the office due

to a family illness on the East Coast. Realty World argues that as soon as it became aware of the

missed deadline, it disclosed two experts, one an ADA expert and the other Dr. Younger, the

medical expert previously disclosed by the co-defendants. Counsel, however, did not produce

accompanying reports for either expert. Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to stipulate to an

extension of time for Realty World’s designation of experts, so Realty World filed the pending

Case 2:06-cv-02416-WBS-EFB Document 38 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 7
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

4

ex parte application to enlarge time, seeking the court’s permission to deem its expert

disclosures timely.

Plaintiff opposes Realty World’s motion, arguing that his claims against Realty World

are straightforward and limited to a finite period of time, and therefore do not require particularly

complex expert discovery. Further, plaintiff argues that Realty World’s failure to meet the

deadline does not explain or justify its “utter failure to do any work at all prior to the expert

disclosure date.” See Pl.’s Opp’n at 3:13-14. In this vein, plaintiff points to defendant’s

awareness of the already-extended expert disclosure date, and attests that he spoke to all three

defense counsel in late July about the impending September 20, disclosure date. See Declaration

of John W. Jefferson, at ¶ 6; Exh. C thereto. Finally, plaintiff argues that another attorney –

Morin Jacob – has been doing most of the work in this case and not Mr. Thompson, thereby

making Mr. Thompson’s absence from the office during the deadline date irrelevant. 

II. ANALYSIS

There are no bright-line rules against permitting a late filing attributable to attorney

neglect. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 2004). Rule 6(b) allows for the court to

enlarge time, provided the moving party shows cause and the failure to comply with the deadline

was the result of excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

To determine whether neglect was excusable, courts generally consider the following

factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its

potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and, (4) whether the movant

acted in good faith. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 123-24 (9th Cir. 2000). 

A. Prejudice

Realty World argues that plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the late designation of

experts and production of expert reports. Specifically, Realty World argues that it intends to

designate the same independent medical expert that co-defendant Stanaway has already

designated. However, as discussed above, there is a pending dispute before the court regarding

Case 2:06-cv-02416-WBS-EFB Document 38 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 7
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

 It is noteworthy that the law firm representing Realty World is a national firm with

hundreds of attorneys, and eighty-plus attorneys in its San Francisco office.

5

whether or not the other defendants’ designation of Dr. Younger was timely, given their failure

to file the report by September 20, 2007. Again, the court notes that it appears the delay by the

other defendants in filing the report was based on the misimpression that plaintiff’s agreement to

undergo the IME was, in effect, an agreement to an extension of the expert disclosure deadline. 

In any event, the court admonishes defendants that they cannot simply stipulate to modify the

court’s scheduling order. As with their previous request for an extension of time, appropriate

papers must be filed to obtain approval from the court to modify the schedule.

B. Length of Delay and Impact on the Proceedings

Realty World argues that as soon as it realized the expert disclosure deadline had passed,

it immediately moved to rectify the situation by contacting the other parties to seek a stipulated

extension of time. It argues that these efforts put the other parties on notice of Realty World’s

request for an enlargement of time, and further, that any impact on the proceedings is minimal

given that trial is not scheduled until May 6, 2008. The court notes, however, that the impending

discovery deadline is set for November 28, 2007, and absent an extension thereof, plaintiff

would not be permitted ample time to depose Realty World’s untimely-designated expert

witnesses. 

C. Reason for the Delay and Good Faith

As discussed above, Realty World’s defense counsel attributes the failure to comply with

the disclosure deadline to his secretary’s failure to properly calendar the new deadline, and his

own absence from the office due to an illness in the family. Again, plaintiff counters that

another attorney in Mr. Thompson’s firm – Morin Jacob – has performed most of the work in

this action, not Mr. Thompson, thus implying that Mr. Thompson’s absence from the office

should have had no impact on compliance with the deadline.2

 Whatever the case may be in that

regard, Mr. Thompson sent an entirely different attorney to the hearing on this emergency

Case 2:06-cv-02416-WBS-EFB Document 38 Filed 11/01/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

motion, and neither Mr. Thompson nor Attorney Jacob could be questioned regarding the delay. 

Finally, Realty World asserts that the delay was not willful nor made in bad faith, and points to

its good faith efforts to rectify the situation once it was made aware of the expired deadline. 

These efforts, it argues, underscore the fact that Realty World was not attempting to gain an

unfair advantage or unfairly prejudice other parties. 

D. Other Considerations

Realty World further urges the court to grant its motion, asserting that it will be

substantially prejudiced in its ability to defend against this suit if it is unable to designate

experts. Realty World argues that expert testimony is required to establish whether or not the

property at issue violated the relevant provisions of the ADA, whether the breach caused

plaintiff’s injuries, and, to determine the extent of those injuries. It argues that not allowing it to

present expert testimony would be tantamount to a finding of liability against them. Plaintiff

counters that the property has been altered long since his injury, and that any expert discovery at

this date would be meaningless with regard to plaintiff’s claims. These contentions simply beg

the underlying questions of good cause and prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

Although the court does not impute ill motives to defendant’s counsel, the court is

unimpressed with Realty World’s reasons for missing the expert disclosure deadline, especially

in light of the previous extension of time granted by the court. The court does not find good

cause for Realty World to designate new experts that were not at least timely identified by it or

any other defendant. However, to the extent that Realty World wishes to use experts that may

have been timely disclosed by a co-defendant there would not appear to be any prejudice to the

plaintiff. It would simply entail the participation of an additional attorney during the deposition

and trial testimony of the same designated experts. But, as noted, there is an underlying dispute– 

yet to be resolved-- as to whether the co-defendants have timely disclosed these experts. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02416-WBS-EFB Document 38 Filed 11/01/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Accordingly, Realty World will be granted a limited extension of time to designate these experts

if the court finds, in ruling on defendant Stanaway’s motion, calendared for November 14, 2007,

that they were properly disclosed by the co-defendants. Specifically, to the extent Dr. Younger

is permitted to proceed with the IME, file a corresponding report, and testify at trial on behalf of

the other defendants, the court will allow Realty World to rely on the same. However, in the

event that is the ruling, the court, to avoid prejudice to plaintiff, will grant plaintiff ample

opportunity to depose that expert and designate any rebuttal experts. With regard to Realty

World’s ADA expert, the court will allow Realty World to utilize and rely on any such expert

previously disclosed by the other defendants, to the extent defendants can agree on such an

arrangement. Realty World’s motion is otherwise denied.

So ordered.

DATED: November 1, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02416-WBS-EFB Document 38 Filed 11/01/07 Page 7 of 7