Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01224/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01224-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 1

In belated submissions, including a declaration filed after the hearing, plaintiff urges

this court not to entertain the instant motion because Allstate did not conduct a “live” meet-andconfer with him as to the issues presented. However, under the particular facts presented here, this

court is persuaded that such a conference could not have led to a resolution of the instant dispute.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SHANNON KELSEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-01224 RMW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S

EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION

[Re: Docket No. 20]

This matter having been referred to the undersigned for disposition, on May 3, 2005, this court

heard the “Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Designation” filed by defendant Allstate

Insurance Company (“Allstate”). Plaintiff Shannon Kelsey (“plaintiff”) opposed the motion. At issue

are plaintiff’s designation of two testifying experts: (1) Everette Lee Herndon, who was retained to

opine as to claims handling issues and (2) Dr. James Missett, who was retained to opine about

plaintiff’s claimed emotional distress. Based upon the papers submitted, as well as the arguments of

counsel, the court grants the motion.1

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from an August 27, 2000 fire that damaged plaintiff’s home. On December

19, 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint in state court for bad faith breach of contract, alleging that Allstate

Case 5:04-cv-01224-RMW Document 51 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 6
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

failed to timely pay benefits owed under his homeowners insurance policy and to make full payment

for the loss of his personal property. Allstate subsequently removed the matter to this court, asserting

diversity jurisdiction.

On September 24, 2004, the District Court issued a Case Management Order setting a March

1, 2005 deadline for the parties’ expert witness disclosure, with the disclosure to include written

reports. On March 2, 2005, plaintiff served his disclosure which consisted of a list of fifteen names,

most of which are Allstate employees and other third-party witnesses. Also on the list were the names

of Mr. Herndon and Dr. Missett, the only individuals – plaintiff later confirmed – who were to be

formally retained as experts.

No written reports were produced with the disclosure. Mr. Herndon’s report was not served

on Allstate until March 30, 2005, one day before the court-ordered close of all discovery. Dr.

Missett’s report was not served until April 5, 2005, one week after discovery closed and over one

month after the disclosure deadline.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, Allstate now moves for an order striking plaintiff’s untimely

expert designations and precluding him from calling Mr. Herndon and Dr. Missett at trial.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) provides, in relevant part that “[a] party that without substantial

justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) . . . is not, unless such failure is

harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or

information not so disclosed.” “In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court, on motion and after

affording an opportunity to be heard, may impose other appropriate sanctions,” including (1) the

payment of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees; (2) any of the sanctions authorized by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C); and (3) informing the jury of the failure to make the

disclosure. See id.

This rule “provides a self-executing sanction for failure to make a disclosure required by Rule

26(a), without need for a motion [to compel disclosure] under [Fed.R.Civ.P. 37] (a)(2)(A).” See

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (1993 Amendments); see also Yeti By Molly, Ltd. v.

Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (acknowledging that the sanction

Case 5:04-cv-01224-RMW Document 51 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 6
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 The record indicates that plaintiff’s counsel did not speak with Mr. Herndon about

this lawsuit for the first time until March 2, 2005 – i.e., one day after the expert disclosure

deadline. (See Woelfel Decl., Ex. F). At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel stated that he might have

called and left a message for Mr. Herndon on or before March 1, 2005, but he does not recall

what, if anything, he said about this lawsuit or about plaintiff’s plans to retain him as an expert in this

action.

3

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) is “self-executing” and “automatic”). The burden is on the party facing

sanctions to prove harmlessness. Yeti By Molly, Ltd., 259 F.3d at 1107.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has offered no satisfactory explanation for his failure to timely comply with the court’s

case management schedule and provide his experts’ written reports as required under Fed.R.Civ.

26(a)(2)(B). His contention that he was not obliged to produce reports for his “nonretained experts,

treating doctors and Allstate’s personnel” is immaterial. The instant motion concerns only his failure to

timely designate and produce reports for his retained experts, Mr. Herndon and Dr. Missett.

The papers presented indicate that plaintiff’s counsel was careless and/or indifferent as to the

court-ordered March 1, 2005 deadline for expert disclosures. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Herndon

was unable to timely complete his report because Allstate produced twenty-one pages of additional

documents on March 23, 2005. However, plaintiff does not seriously dispute that Mr. Herndon was

not retained in this matter until sometime after the March 1, 2005 disclosure deadline.2 Moreover,

there is no indication that Mr. Herndon was waiting to review these additional documents, or that

plaintiff even knew that Allstate would be making an additional document production. Further, for

purposes of the instant motion, it is irrelevant whether a report by Mr. Herndon would have been

complete if it had, hypothetically, been timely produced. Indeed, plaintiff’s counsel conceded at the

hearing that had Mr. Herndon been timely retained, Mr. Herndon could have produced a report by

March 1, 2005 based upon the documents produced by Allstate up to that point.

Additionally, the court rejects out of hand plaintiff’s contention that Mr. Herndon was unable

to complete his report because Allstate allegedly delayed in scheduling the deposition of its field

adjuster, Mr. Bryan. As noted above, plaintiff had not even retained Mr. Herndon in this matter by the

March 1, 2005 deadline. Moreover, there is no indication that plaintiff told Allstate that he needed

Case 5:04-cv-01224-RMW Document 51 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Mr. Bryan’s deposition before Mr. Herndon could write his report. Indeed, Mr. Herndon apparently

prepared his report without reviewing Mr. Bryan’s deposition testimony.

As for plaintiff’s contention that Dr. Missett maintains a very busy schedule, this lawsuit was

filed on December 19, 2003, and Judge Whyte issued his Case Management Order on September 24,

2004. Thus, plaintiff had ample time to retain experts and to work around their schedules as

necessary.

Plaintiff does not describe the importance of Mr. Herndon’s and Dr. Missett’s testimony to his

case. Whatever significance they may have, however, only underscores the need for plaintiff to have

complied with the court’s case management order in a timely fashion.

In summary, none of plaintiff’s explanations and justifications serve to excuse his

noncompliance with the expert designation requirements or with the court’s case management

deadlines.

Moreover, plaintiff’s belated disclosure was not harmless. Allstate was deprived of the

opportunity to take meaningful discovery of Mr. Herndon and Dr. Missett. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(b)(4)(A) (“[i]f a report from the expert is required under subdivision (a)(2)(B), the deposition shall

not be conducted until after the report is provided”). Allstate was also unable to designate its own

rebuttal experts (if any) by the court-ordered March 15, 2005 deadline. Plaintiff says he is willing to

make his experts available for deposition up until twenty days before the trial which is set to begin on

June 20, 2005. However, neither party has requested a continuance; and, at this stage of the litigation,

the harm to Allstate cannot be cured – at least not without imposing an onerous and undue burden

upon Allstate.

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Allstate’s motion to strike plaintiff’s expert designations is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

expert designation is stricken, and he shall be precluded from calling Mr. Herndon and Dr. Missett to

testify at trial.

Case 5:04-cv-01224-RMW Document 51 Filed 05/03/05 Page 4 of 6
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

5

2. Allstate’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-01224-RMW Document 51 Filed 05/03/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

5:04-cv-1224 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Michael A. Barnes mbarnes@sonnenschein.com 

Sonia Renee Martin swm@sonnenschein.com 

John A. Shepardson johnshepardson@hotmail.com 

Jessica Lou Woelfel jwoelfel@sonnenschein.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered

for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:04-cv-01224-RMW Document 51 Filed 05/03/05 Page 6 of 6