Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1080 JAH (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR THE COURT

TO APPOINT AN EXPERT

[DOC. NO. 108]

v.

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to have the court appoint an expert regarding

damages purusant to Fed.R.Ev. 706. (Doc. No. 108). Plaintiff asserts that because he is indigent

and proceeding in forma pauperus and the Defendant City of Carlsbad has identified two damages

experts, that a court-appointed expert is necessary in the interests of justice. For the reasons set

forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Background

Plaintiff has alleged violations of his constitutional rights stemming, for the most part, from

his removals from meetings of the Carlsbad City Council and subsequent arrest. Plaintiff filed his

initial complaint in Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The case was removed to this

Court by the Defendant City of Carlsbad on May 17, 2011. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff filed his First

Amended Complaint on September 29, 2011. (Doc. No. 20). On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff

filed his Second Amended Complaint, which is now the operative pleading, against the City of

- 1 - 11cv1080 JAH (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 110 Filed 02/07/12 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

27

28

Carlsbad, individual City Council members, the City Attorney, the City Manager and twelve police

officers. (Doc. No. 62). 

Pending before the District Court are Plaintiff’s motion for relief under California

Government Code 946.6 (Doc. No. 23) and for summary judgment (Doc. No. 77). Also pending

before the District Court are Defendant City of Carlsbad motions to stay proceedings pursuant to

the Younger abstention doctrine (Doc. No. 65) and to dismiss (Doc. No. 66). The individual

Defendants have pending a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 85). 

Discussion

Fed.R.Ev. 706 allows courts, in certain limited circumstances, to designate an expert

witness. The expert must consent to the appointment, provide his or her findings to the parties,

submit to deposition and may be called as a trial witness by any party or by the court. Id. The

decision to appoint an expert witness lies within the discretion of the court and is based upon such

factors as the complexity of the matters to be determined and the court’s need for a neutral, expert

view. See Carranza v. Fraas, 763 F.Supp.2d 113, 119 (D.D.C. 2011). Courts do not, however,

appoint expert witnesses for the purpose of assisting a litigating party. Id. 

Plaintiff is looking to the court to appoint an expert to provide an independent analysis of

the damage claimed by Plaintiff; to provide a “second opinion” to whatever opinions are rendered

by Defendants’ experts; and, to provide a countering opinion where fair and necessary to the “forprofit experts the Defendants have hired via their incalculably superior resources . . . .” (Doc. No.

108 at 2). 

The Court finds that, at least at this stage of the proceedings, it has no need for a courtappointed independent expert on the issue of damages. This litigation is in its early stages and, as

provided above, has two dismissal motions and one motion to stay pending, in addition to other

potentially dispositive motions. Damages are not yet in the equation. Moreover, the Court finds

that there is insufficient reason to believe that the issue of damages will be so complex as to

require an expert to assist the Court. 

Also, as discussed above, it is not the purpose of Rule 706 for the Court to provide an

- 2 - 11cv1080 JAH (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 110 Filed 02/07/12 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

27

28

expert to a litigant or to provide countering opinions or second opinions in support of a particular

litigant. To the extent that the Court would consider appointing an expert, it would be to assist the

Court in determining a complex matter or to provide to the Court a neutral view. This case is not

yet ripe for such a determination. And, Rule 706(a) provides that the Court can make such a

determination for its own purposes without a motion by a party. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of an expert under Rule 706 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: February 7, 2012 

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 3 - 11cv1080 JAH (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 110 Filed 02/07/12 Page 3 of 3