Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00978-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK VANIER,

NO. CIV. S-06-978 LKK/EFB

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BATTERY HANDLING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s ex parte motion to

exclude Battery Handling Systems’ (“defendant”) rebuttal experts.

The court decides the matter based on the papers and without oral

argument.

On February 21, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to

exclude defendant’s experts who were designated after the deadline

for the designation of experts. In that order, the court found

that defendant not only failed to designate experts prior to the

deadline, but defendant also failed to comply with the requirements

set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/06/07 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

2

require that expert reports accompany the designation. Defendant’s

late disclosure contained a list of experts, but no reports.

Despite the court’s order, defendant filed a designation of

rebuttal experts on February 26, 2007. Plaintiff now seeks to

exclude these experts on the grounds that the disclosure violates

the court’s scheduling order and the February 21, 2007 order.

Plaintiff avers that all of the experts listed in the rebuttal

expert disclosure are identical to the experts listed in the

initial expert disclosure, and only one of the expert's opinions

contain any actual rebuttal of plaintiff’s experts.

Defendant’s latest disclosure is in violation of both the

scheduling order and the court’s most recent order. Pursuant to

the scheduling order, the parties were to disclose experts no later

than January 25, 2007. As previously discussed in the court’s

February 21, 2007 order, defendant failed to comply with this

deadline. The scheduling order also made clear that an expert not

properly disclosed, 

will not be permitted to testify unless the party offering

the witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of the

witness could not have been reasonably anticipated at the

time the lists were exchanged; (b) the court and opposing

counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witness;

and (c) that the witness was promptly proffered for

deposition.

See September 16, 2006 Scheduling Order. Here, defendant has

failed to demonstrate how the rebuttal experts meet these

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/06/07 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

In an amended mid-litigation statement filed by defendant 1

on February 28, 2007, defendant asserts that it will file a motion

for reconsideration of the court’s order excluding defendant’s

expert witnesses. When and if that motion is filed, the court will

reexamine these issues. In the meantime, the court hereby excludes

all defendant experts not properly designated. 

3

requirements. 

To the extent that the February 21 order was not clear, the

court hereby offers clarification. In light of defendant’s failure

to comply with both the Federal Rules and the court’s scheduling

order, all of defendant’s experts who were not designated prior to

the deadline set forth in the scheduling order shall be excluded.

This applies to rebuttal experts as well. 

1

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Defendant’s experts who were designated after the

deadline set forth in the scheduling order shall be

EXCLUDED. 

2. Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to exclude rebuttal experts

is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 6, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00978-LKK-EFB Document 51 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 3