Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01673/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01673-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller 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

1 08cv1673

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use

and benefit of:

TECHNICA, LLC,

Civil No. 08cv1673 JAH (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

v. DESIGNATE AN ADDITIONAL EXPERT

CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

On August 7, 2009, the Court held a telephonic conference on Defendants' application for leave

to designate an additional expert after the expiration of the deadline to identify experts in this matter. 

[Doc. No. 54.] Plaintiff filed an opposition to the request. [Doc. No. 59.] Jack Leer, Esq., appeared for

Plaintiff. Robert Berens, Esq., appeared for Defendants. Having considered the submissions of the

parties, and argument of counsel, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. 

The Scheduling Order in this case required each party to identify any experts it intended to use

and the subject matter of each expert's testimony, no later than July 9, 2009. [Doc. No. 19.] 

Supplemental identifications were due no later than July 20, 2009. [Id.] On July 24, 2009, counsel for

Defendants contacted Plaintiff’s counsel about the designation of an additional expert on two additional

and discrete topics. Plaintiff's counsel objected based on the untimeliness of the request to supplement. 

Case 3:08-cv-01673-H-KSC Document 61 Filed 08/10/09 Page 1 of 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

2 08cv1673

Although the Defendants' designation was late, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Defendants

the relief requested. The delay has not resulted in any apparent prejudice to Plaintiff. Defendants may

supplement their expert disclosure, no later than August 12, 2009, to identify an expert on the two

specific topics set forth in their application: (1) the reasonableness of Technica's markup charges for

employee services; and (2) whether Technica failed to mitigate its damages. The expert's report,

pursuant to Rule 26(a)2(B), must be served no later than August 31, 2009. 

Plaintiff is excused from making a rebuttal identification until the service of a rebuttal report on

these topics no later than September 14, 2009. Upon receipt of the expert's report, Plaintiff may seek

leave to request additional fact discovery, if it deems such discovery necessary to prepare a rebuttal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2009

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01673-H-KSC Document 61 Filed 08/10/09 Page 2 of 2