Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02820/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02820-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUISA GONZALEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TEXACO, INC., TEXACO

PETROLEUM COMPANY, INC., 

CHEVRON CORPORATION, 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02820 WHA

ORDER RE LETTER

DATED MAY 18, 2007

Contrary to the Jones Day letter dated May 18, 2007, no proof has been submitted

establishing an “agreement.” All that has been supplied is an offer by plaintiffs in 2006. 

The defense did not accept the offer and, instead, had a counter proposal, at least according to

the materials submitted. It is unfair to try to hold the other side to its offer unless it is actually

accepted. Defendant appears to be trying to have it both ways, seeking the benefit of selected

parts of plaintiffs’ proposal without accepting all of it. So the motion is DENIED.

Nonetheless, this observation may be in order. If it is true, as alleged, that plaintiffs

disclosed over 1000 potential witnesses in their initial disclosures, then plaintiffs may have, in

effect, made no proper disclosure at all and may face preclusion under Rule 37(c). Counsel

should not hide the genuine witnesses among a welter of non-genuine names. If any such

1000+ witness disclosure was in fact made, plaintiffs would be advised to cure the problem as

soon as possible to the extent a cure is possible at this hour in the case. 

Case 3:06-cv-02820-WHA Document 188 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Note as well that Rule 26(a)(3) calls for certain pretrial disclosures but such disclosures

are usually thirty days before trial. Although this date can be advanced by the Court, a deadline

of six months before trial is too soon. Rather, the problem raised by the letter concerns initial

disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1). If initial disclosures have not been properly provided, the

remedy may be a preclusion order under Rule 37(c). Such a motion must be brought as a

motion in limine, with a normal record to support the motion, and is usually heard at the final

pretrial conference. It is not a discovery dispute and will not be addressed further through an

exchange of letters. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02820-WHA Document 188 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2