Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00046-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COPART, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SPARTA CONSULTING, INC., KPIT 

INFOSYSTEMS, INC., and KPIT 

TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

Two ex parte applications have been filed with the court. 

The first is the ex parte application of defendants Sparta Consulting, Inc., KPIT 

Infosystems, Inc., and KPIT Technologies, Ltd. (collectively, “defendants”) to exclude three 

expert witnesses offered by plaintiff Copart, Inc., for violation of the court’s amended scheduling 

order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ex Parte Application, ECF No. 171. Plaintiff 

opposes the ex parte application. Opp’n, ECF No. 173. Defendants have replied. Reply, ECF 

No. 174. For the reasons explained below, the court resolves the matter without hearing and 

DENIES the application. 

The second is plaintiff’s ex parte application to strike portions of defendants’ 

rebuttal expert reports. Pl.’s Ex Parte Application, ECF No. 178. Defendants oppose the ex 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 182 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 7
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

parte application. Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No 179. For the reasons explained below, the court 

DENIES this application as well. 

I. DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION 

A. Background 

The court briefly addresses the relevant portions of its prior order before turning to 

defendants’ arguments. See Am. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 140. 

On August 17, 2016, in light of plaintiff’s third amended complaint that named 

two new defendants and included seven new claims, the court issued the operative amended 

scheduling order. See Am. Scheduling Order 1–2. The amended scheduling order included 

updated deadlines for each phase of the case: discovery was to be completed by October 28, 

2016; expert discovery completed by January 13, 2017; dispositive motions heard by February 

10, 2017; and trial set for August 14, 2017. Id. at 3–10. Most relevant here, in a section entitled 

“Disclosure of Expert Witnesses,” the order provided deadlines for initial expert disclosures on 

November 25, 2016, and supplemental expert disclosures on December 16, 2016. Id. at 3–4. The 

parties do not dispute these dates, but disagree as to whether each party must disclose expert 

reports for all experts. See Ex Parte Application 2–4; Opp’n 4–5. 

In the court’s amended scheduling order, the court provided, “[a]ll counsel are to 

designate in writing, file with the court, and serve upon all other parties the name, address, and 

area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than November 25, 

2016. The designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the 

witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).” Am. Scheduling Order 3–4. 

The court’s order explains that a party’s failure to properly disclose “in all likelihood will 

preclude that party from calling the expert witness at the time of trial.” Id. at 4. The court’s order 

goes on to define “expert”: 

For purposes of this scheduling order, an “expert” is any person 

who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702, 703 

and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which include both 

“percipient experts” (persons who, because of their expertise, have 

rendered expert opinions in the normal course of their work duties 

or observations pertinent to the issues in the case) and “retained 

experts” (persons specifically designated by a party to be a 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 182 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 7
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 

3

testifying expert for the purposes of litigation). A party shall 

identify whether a disclosed expert is percipient, retained, or both. 

It will be assumed that a party designating a retained expert has 

acquired the express permission of the witness to be so listed. 

Parties designating percipient experts must state in the designation 

who is responsible for arranging the deposition of such persons. 

Id. 

B. Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosures 

Plaintiff timely filed expert disclosures on November 23, 2016, two days before 

the court’s deadline. Pl.’s Designation/Disclosure, ECF No. 169. The filing listed five expert 

witnesses: Mohan Rao, LaBaron Hartfield, Phatela Mosothoane, Justin Chapman, and Rama 

Prasad. Id. at 2. The first two—Rao and Hartfield—are consultants retained by plaintiff to testify 

in this case. Id. ¶¶ 14–18. Plaintiff served expert reports for both witnesses on defendants on 

May 31, 2016, and served a supplemental report for Hartfield on November 23, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 15, 

17–18. 

The last three—Mosothoane, Chapman, and Prasad—are employees of plaintiff, 

and they serve as the Vice President of Enterprise Systems, Vice President of Finance, and Chief 

Technology Officer, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 1–13. Prior to the November 25 deadline, plaintiff did 

not serve expert reports for these three witnesses on defendants but instead provided a brief 

summary of each witness’s background with the company, the subjects about which each witness 

would testify, and the basis for each witness’s testimony. Id. Plaintiff said it disclosed 

Mosothoane, Chapman, and Prasad under Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 10. 

C. Discussion 

Defendants argue plaintiff’s having not provided expert reports for the three 

employee-experts violates the court’s scheduling order as well as Rules 26(a)(2)(B) and 

26(a)(2)(C). Ex Parte Application 2–4. Defendants ask the court to exclude the three employeeexperts from providing expert opinions on a motion, at a hearing, or at trial under Rule 37. Id. at 

5. For the reasons discussed below, the court finds plaintiff complied with Rules 26(a)(2)(B) and 

26(a)(2)(C) and that the court’s scheduling order did not require anything more. As a result, 

exclusion under Rule 37 is not warranted. 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 182 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 7
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

1. Rule 26 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) (“Disclosure of Expert Testimony”) 

requires a party to identify any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules 

of Evidence 702, 703, or 705. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A). 

In addition to disclosing the identity of expert witnesses, a party must disclose 

additional information about each expert witness’s potential testimony. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2)(B)–(C). The Rule was amended in 2010 to distinguish between “Witnesses Who Must 

Provide a Written Report,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), and “Witnesses Who Do Not Provide a 

Written Report,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory notes (2010). 

Witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) must prepare and sign a written report that satisfies several 

requirements, such as the “facts or data considered by the witness.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2)(B)(i)–(vi). In contrast, witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2)(C) must disclose only “the subject 

matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(i), and 

“a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(2)(C)(ii). A written report is required “if the witness is one retained or specially employed 

to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly 

involve giving expert testimony.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

The Advisory Committee notes for the 2010 amendment discuss the rationale for 

the new category of expert witnesses: 

Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is added to mandate summary disclosures of the 

opinions to be offered by expert witnesses who are not required to 

provide reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and of the facts supporting 

those opinions. This disclosure is considerably less extensive than 

the report required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Courts must take care 

against requiring undue detail, keeping in mind that these witnesses 

have not been specially retained and may not be as responsive to 

counsel as those who have. This amendment resolves a tension that 

has sometimes prompted courts to require reports under Rule 

26(a)(2)(B) even from witnesses exempted from the report 

requirement. An (a)(2)(B) report is required only from an expert 

described in (a)(2)(B). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory notes (2010). 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 182 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 7
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

Here, the court finds plaintiff’s three employee-experts fall under Rule 

26(a)(2)(C), as plaintiff indicated, and not Rule 26(a)(2)(B). The duties of the three employeeexperts do not “regularly involve giving expert testimony.” See Opp’n 2. None of the employeeexperts have ever given expert testimony or prepared an expert report before. Id. Thus, the 

employee-experts are not witnesses who must provide a written report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). 

Instead, the employee-experts are properly characterized as witnesses subject to the less 

demanding requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(C). 

The court further finds plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(C), 

which requires disclosure of “the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present 

evidence” and “a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(i)–(ii). Here, plaintiff has disclosed the identity of the three 

employee-experts, a brief summary of each witness’s background with the company, the subjects 

about which each witness would testify, and the basis for each witness’s testimony. Pl.’s 

Designation/Disclosure ¶¶ 1–13. This is sufficient under Rule 26(a)(2)(C). 

In sum, the court finds plaintiff adequately satisfied Rule 26 when it filed a timely 

disclosure for its three employee-experts under Rule 26(a)(2)(C). The court next considers 

whether the amended scheduling order required anything more. 

2. Compliance with Amended Scheduling Order 

The court’s amended scheduling order does not modify the requirements of Rule 

26(a)(2). See Am. Scheduling Order 3–4. Defendants are correct that the court’s order defines 

“expert” broadly to include any expert subject to Rule 26. See Am. Scheduling Order 4 (“For 

purposes of this scheduling order, an “expert” is any person who may be used at trial to present 

evidence under Rules 702, 703 and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”). However, the 

court’s order specifically ties the written report requirement to Rule 26(a)(2)(B). See id. at 3–4

(“The [expert witness] designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed 

by the witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).”). Because plaintiff’s 

three employee-experts are not subject to that rule, the scheduling order’s written report 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 182 Filed 01/09/17 Page 5 of 7
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

requirement does not apply to them. Thus, plaintiff’s compliance with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) is 

sufficient under the court’s order as well. 

In sum, the court finds plaintiff’s three employee-experts are subject to the 

requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(C), that plaintiff has satisfied those requirements, and that the 

court’s amended scheduling order does not require anything more in this instance. Thus, 

exclusion of the employee-experts is not appropriate under Rule 37. The court DENIES 

defendants’ ex parte application. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 

Plaintiff also has filed an ex parte application to strike portions of defendants’ 

rebuttal expert reports. See generally Pl.’s Ex Parte Application. Plaintiff argues defendants’ 

expert reports by Michael Shamos (“Shamos Report”) and Jim Mottern (“Mottern Report”), 

offered as rebuttal to the reports of plaintiff’s expert, LaBaron Hartfield (“Hartfield Initial 

Report,” “Hartfield Supplemental Report”), include material beyond the scope of proper rebuttal. 

Id. at 2. The application, filed on December 30, 2016, sought the court’s ruling in time for 

plaintiff’s deposition of defendants’ experts on January 10 and 12, 2017. Id. 

Here, the court is satisfied, for the purposes of this application, that the scope of 

plaintiff’s expert reports are sufficiently broad to encompass the contents of both of defendants’ 

rebuttal expert reports. See, e.g., Hartfield Supplemental Report, Section XII (“Sparta and 

KPIT’s Theft of Copart’s Intellectual Property”). Thus, the Shamos and Mottern Reports are “on 

the same subject matter” as plaintiff’s expert reports, and plaintiff has not shown a violation of 

the court’s scheduling order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, plaintiff has 

not shown what prejudice will result from denying plaintiff’s application, as plaintiff will have 

the opportunity to depose each of defendants’ two rebuttal experts. The court DENIES plaintiff’s 

ex parte application. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The court DENIES defendants’ ex parte application and DENIES plaintiff’s ex 

parte application. These rulings are without prejudice and may be renewed, in limine or in 

another appropriate motion, subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 182 Filed 01/09/17 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

This resolves ECF Nos. 171 and 178. 

DATED: January 9, 2017. 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 182 Filed 01/09/17 Page 7 of 7