Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03548/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03548-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION (CIV. L.R. 7-14)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAARMAN CONSTRUCTION, LTD,

Plaintiff,

v.

IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03548-JST 

PRETRIAL ORDER

Following this afternoon’s pretrial conference, and having considered the parties’ pretrial 

statement and the arguments made by counsel, the Court now issues the following pretrial order:

1. Ironshore’s Request to Exclude the Testimony of Paul Lahaderne

Ironshore objects to the testimony of Paul Lahaderne, the attorney who tendered Saarman’s 

claim to Ironshore and communicated with Ironshore regarding that claim thereafter. Mr. 

Lahaderne has never represented Ironshore. He is of counsel to Sedgwick LLP, a law firm that 

represents Ironshore in unrelated matters. Defendant argues that if Mr. Lahaderne testifies on 

behalf of Saarman, he will be violating his duty of loyalty to Ironshore. Ironshore asks the Court 

to prevent Mr. Lahaderne from testifying on that basis. 

The Court will deny this request. First, the Court is aware of no authority that supports 

Ironshore’s request, and Ironshore cites none. Mr. Lahaderne does not represent Saarman as an 

attorney in this proceeding; he is a witness. Ironshore is not asking the Court to relieve Mr. 

Lahaderne of his representation in this case, but to exclude his testimony.1 The rules and cases to 

 

1

The poor fit between the law Ironshore cites and the request it makes is illustrated by the fact 

that, even if Mr. Lahaderne’s testimony were excluded, he would be free to continue to represent 

Case 3:15-cv-03548-JST Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

which Ironshore cites the Court simply do not apply. Indeed, Ironshore conceded at today’s 

pretrial conference that letters that Mr. Lahaderne sent to Ironshore would be admissible. There is 

no reason that his testimony would not also be. 

Second, even if Ironshore had the legal ability to make such a request, it waived it by not 

making it earlier. It has been aware that Mr. Lahaderne was representing Saarman since February 

2014. It has been aware that it was being sued with regard to the tender since at least the filing of 

this lawsuit in July 2015. It took Mr. Lahaderne’s deposition in this case. Yet it took no action 

until a few days when the parties submitted their pretrial statement. “It is well settled that a 

former client who is entitled to object to an attorney representing an opposing party on the ground 

of conflict of interest but who knowingly refrains from asserting it promptly is deemed to have 

waived that right.” Trust Corp. of Montana v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 701 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 

1983). For Ironshore to wait until the eve of trial to ask that Mr. Lahaderne’s testimony be 

excluded is equivalent to a waiver of its right to complain. 

Ironshore’s request is denied.

2. Ironshore’s Request to Exclude the Testimony of Neal Bordenave

Ironshore asks the Court to exclude the testimony of Saarman’s expert witness, Neal 

Bordenave. Mr. Bordenave has been designated as an expert regarding whether Ironshore 

conducted a reasonable investigation and other issues related to Saarman’s bad faith claim. His 

report was required to be served on May 24, 2016, but was not served until June 13, 2016, 

approximately three weeks later.

Parties wishing to rely on expert opinions must disclose those opinions and the facts or 

data considered in forming them “at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). Failure to comply with a court's discovery orders may lead to discovery 

sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b). Moreover, “[i]f a party fails to 

provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed 

to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless 

 

Saarman in its coverage discussions with Ironshore. 

Case 3:15-cv-03548-JST Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). “[E]ven when a 

party cannot demonstrate that the failure to designate an expert timely was substantially justified 

or harmless, [however,] a court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to impose lesser sanctions

than complete exclusion.” Zertuche v. Cty. of Santa Clara, No. 11-CV-3691 YGR, 2013 WL 

4111142, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013). 

The Court concludes that Saarman’s late disclosure was not substantially justified and that

Ironshore suffered prejudice. True, Ironshore did nothing to protect its rights following the late 

disclosure: it did not seek an extension of time to designate its rebuttal expert; it did not notice 

Mr. Bordenave’s deposition, and it did not bring the attention to the matter of the Court before the 

parties filed their pretrial statement. But it was prejudiced by having less time to designate a 

rebuttal expert, and the Court cannot say that Defendant’s failure means that that Plaintiff’s late 

disclosure should go entirely without sanction. “Disruption to the schedule of the court and other 

parties in that manner is not harmless. Courts set such schedules to permit the court and the 

parties to deal with cases in a thorough and orderly manner, and they must be allowed to enforce 

them, unless there are good reasons not to.” Wong v. Regents of Univ. of California, 410 F.3d 

1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005). 

The Court concludes, however, that exclusion is too severe a sanction, because it would 

probably result in the equivalent of a directed verdict on Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. Given that 

fact, Defendant’s prior inaction, and that a lesser sanction exists that can cure any prejudice to 

Defendant, the Court finds that a lesser sanction is appropriate: a continuance of the trial date. A 

continuance will enable Ironshore to designate a rebuttal expert, and the parties to take both 

experts’ depositions. Moreover, it is clear from the disheveled state of the parties’ pretrial 

statement and proposed jury instructions that they simply are not ready to try this case now. Thus, 

a continuance will not only remedy Saarman’s late expert disclosure but is in the interests of all 

parties and the Court.

The rebuttal expert deadline is continued to September 23, 2016. The expert discovery 

deadline is continued to October 21, 2016. The trial of this case is continued to January 30, 2016 

at 8:30 a.m. The further pretrial conference originally set for September 2, 2016 is continued to 

Case 3:15-cv-03548-JST Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

January 4, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. A complete, updated joint pretrial statement must be filed by 

December 16, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Given the condition of the parties’ original pretrial statement, the 

Court cautions counsel that a failure adequately to meet and confer; the submission of obviously 

inadequate jury instructions; or presentation of misstatements of the law will potentially subject 

counsel to monetary sanctions.

3. Other Issues

In light of the foregoing, all other deadlines set by the Court at today’s pretrial conference 

are vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03548-JST Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 4