Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01549/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01549-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal- 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARDAS CALVIN JENNINGS , Civil No. 12-cv-1549-GPC (DHB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DEEM EXPERT

DISCLOSURES AND REPORTS

TIMELY SERVED

[ECF No. 132]

v.

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff Madras Calvin Jennings and Defendant Mazda Motor of

America, Inc. (“Mazda”) filed a “Motion to Deem Expert Disclosures and Reports Timely

Served.” (ECF No. 132.) None of the other defendants filed a response to the motion

despite an August 8, 2013 deadline to do so. (ECF No. 133.) The motion seeks an order

from the Court finding that Mazda’s expert witness designations, which were apparently first

served as an attachment to the motion, were timely served, and that Mazda’s experts’ reports

are timely if served on or before August 16, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the

motion is GRANTED.

The Court initially notes that pursuant to the Court’s November 15, 2012 Scheduling

Order, Mazda’s expert designations were due on February 22, 2013, and its experts’ reports

were due on May 10, 2013. (See ECF No. 96 at ¶¶ 3-4.) The fact that Plaintiff now

stipulates that Mazda’s expert designations and reports be deemed timely is insufficient.

/ / / 

12cv1549-GPC (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01549-GPC-DHB Document 145 Filed 08/12/13 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

27

28

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires the parties to disclose the

identity of each expert witness ‘accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the

witness.’” Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quoting FED.R.CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)). Expert disclosures must be made “at the times and in

the sequence that the court orders.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(D). “Rule 37 ‘gives teeth’ to

Rule 26’s disclosure requirements by forbidding the use at trial of any information that is not

properly disclosed.” Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 827

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106). “Rule 37(c)(1) is a ‘selfexecuting,’ ‘automatic’ sanction designed to provide a strong inducement for disclosure.” 

Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 37 advisory committee’s note (1993)). Moreover, because of

the automatic nature of this sanction, courts are not required to make a finding of willfulness

or bad faith prior to excluding expert testimony at trial. See Hoffman v. Constr. Protective

Servs., Inc., 541 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2008).

“When a party fails to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a), the party is not

allowed to use the witness to supply evidence at trial unless it establishes that the failure was

substantially justified or is harmless.” Goodman, 644 F.3d at 826 (citing FED. R. CIV. P.

37(c)(1); Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2008)). “The

burden to prove harmlessness is on the party seeking to avoid Rule 37’s exclusionary

sanction.” Id. at 827 (citing Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1107).

“[P]articularly wide latitude [is given] to the district court’s discretion to issue

sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106 (citing Ortiz-Lopez v.

Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 34 (1st

Cir. 2001)). Despite the severity of this exclusionary sanction, it may be appropriate “even

when a litigant’s entire cause of action or defense has been precluded.” Id. (citing OrtizLopez, 248 F.3d at 35).

The Ninth Circuit has established a five-factor test for determining whether sanctions

are appropriate in these circumstances: “1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation; 2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

2 12cv1549-GPC (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01549-GPC-DHB Document 145 Filed 08/12/13 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

27

28

4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; [and] 5) the availability of

less drastic sanctions.” Wendt v. Host Int’l, Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 814 (9th Cir. 1997).

Here, Mazda has not attempted to meet its burden of demonstrating either (1)

substantial justification for its failure to timely designate experts or serve expert reports or

(2) harmlessness. However, in light of the factors above and because no party has objected

to Mazda’s request, the Court finds that granting Mazda’s request will be harmless. 

Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion to GRANT Mazda’s request.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Mazda’s expert witness designations, attached to the motion as Exhibit A (ECF

No. 132-1) shall be deemed timely served.

2. On or before August 16, 2013, Mazda shall serve its experts’ reports on all

parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2013

DAVID H. BARTICK

United States Magistrate Judge

3 12cv1549-GPC (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01549-GPC-DHB Document 145 Filed 08/12/13 Page 3 of 3