Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00079/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00079-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JUDI JACKSON,

NO. CIV. S-05-0079 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PLACER COUNTY, et al.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants County of

Placer, Richard Stout, Richard Ward, Evelyn Garrett and Brad

Banner’s (collectively, “defendants”) motion to exclude

plaintiff’s experts from testifying at trial. Plaintiff opposes

defendants’ motion.1

 For the reasons set forth herein,

defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Defendants contend that the testimony of plaintiff’s experts

must be barred at trial because of plaintiff’s failure to comply

Case 2:05-cv-00079-FCD-KJM Document 54 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 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

2 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

3 Defendants filed a proper and timely disclosure of

their experts, accompanied by the requisite reports, on October

20, 2006.

2

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)2 and the court’s

Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PSO”), issued August 18, 2005. Rule

26(a)(2)(B) provides that, except as otherwise stipulated or

directed by the court, all disclosures of expert witnesses must

be accompanied by a written report containing a complete

statement of the expert’s opinion and the facts and data relied

on in forming that opinion. As set forth in the court’s PSO,

plaintiff was to disclose her experts no later than October 6,

2006. Defendants were to disclose their experts no later than

October 20, 2006. Thereafter, both parties were given an

additional thirty days to retain and disclose supplemental and

responsive experts.

The PSO specified that each expert designation was to be

accompanied by a written report, prepared and signed by the

expert in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and noted that

failure to comply “in all likelihood will preclude that party

from calling the expert witness at the time of trial.” (PSO at

2.) Plaintiff filed a timely disclosure of expert witnesses on

October 6, 2006; however, she merely listed the names and contact

information of her experts and failed to include any reports.3

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s experts should be excluded

from trial based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule

26(a)(2)(B) and the PSO. They contend that plaintiff’s “blanket

list of names and addresses, with no identifying information as

Case 2:05-cv-00079-FCD-KJM Document 54 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 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

3

to the opinions of any, is close to useless.” (Defs.’ Mot. to

Exclude Pl.’s Experts from Testifying at Trial [“Defs.’ Mot.”],

filed October 20, 2006, at 4.) Be that as it may, the court is

not persuaded that defendants have suffered sufficient prejudice

as a result of plaintiff’s improper disclosure to justify the

exclusion of plaintiff’s experts at trial.

The court notes that plaintiff implicitly seeks to modify

the PSO pursuant to Rule 16 in order to extend time to file her

expert reports. Rule 16 and the court’s pretrial scheduling

order allow for modifications only upon a showing of “good

cause.” As plaintiff notes, this is not an instance where no

experts were identified at all, or where a party seeks, on the

eve of trial, to present an expert not previously disclosed or

deposed. Cf. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., 339 F. Supp. 2d

1081, 1088-89 (E.D. Cal. 2004). Rather, defendants were provided

with a timely, but incomplete, disclosure of plaintiff’s experts. 

Further, discovery in this case does not close until January 19,

2007. The court also notes that plaintiff recently substituted

current counsel for her prior counsel in this matter on November

20, 2006, almost a month after her expert disclosures were due

and after defendants brought this motion to exclude her experts’

testimony at trial. 

In light of the circumstances before it, the court modifies

the PSO to allow plaintiff to promptly serve defendants with the

complete reports of her designated experts, in compliance with

Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Defendants will be afforded additional time to

make any necessary supplemental designations in response to the

reports of plaintiff’s experts.

Case 2:05-cv-00079-FCD-KJM Document 54 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 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

4 However, the court will consider, upon a showing of

good cause, any necessary motions to extend the discovery

deadline beyond January 19, 2007 for the limited purpose of

conducting expert depositions or discovery in light of the

belated expert disclosures.

4

CONCLUSION

1. Defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiff’s experts from

testifying at trial is DENIED.

2. Defendants’ alternative motion to modify the Pretrial

Scheduling Order of August 18, 2005 is GRANTED. The

Pretrial Scheduling Order is modified as follows:

a. Plaintiff must file and serve the reports of her

designated experts no later than 

December 13, 2006.

b. Defendants must file and serve any supplemental

designation no later than January 29, 2007.

2. All other dates set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling

Order shall remain unchanged.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00079-FCD-KJM Document 54 Filed 12/08/06 Page 4 of 4