Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOMEM and WENDY HOMEM,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTEC CORPORATION and JIM

CHAMBLEE,

Defendants /

No. C 05-0792 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

ORDER REOPENING EXPERT

DISCOVERY; DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR MONETARY

SANCTIONS; VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion, filed August 22, 2006, seeking reconsideration

of the Court’s order reopening expert discovery. (See Amended Pretrial Preparation Order,

filed August 8, 2006.) Defendant has filed opposition, in which it includes a request for

imposition of monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. Having considered the

papers filed by the parties, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the papers,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for September 29, 2006, and rules as follows:

At a hearing conducted March 3, 2006, the Court denied defendant’s motion to

extend the then-existing February 20, 2006 deadline to disclose expert witnesses, finding

defendant had not shown sufficient cause for its failure to comply with the February 20,

2006 deadline. At that time, trial was scheduled to begin on April 10, 2006, and prejudice

to plaintiffs by reason of the requested late disclosure was apparent. See, e.g., Yeti by

Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F. 3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding, where

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 194 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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

defendant untimely disclosed expert report one month before trial, delayed disclosure was

not harmless in light of impending trial); Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 410 F.

3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding district court did not err by denying plaintiff’s motion

to extend deadline to disclose experts, where, had plaintiff “been permitted to disregard the

deadline . . ., the rest of the schedule laid out by the court months in advance, and

understood by the parties, would have to have been altered as well”).

Thereafter, for reasons unrelated to expert discovery, the trial was continued to

January 8, 2007. Plaintiffs nonetheless argue that the passage of time does not justify

reopening expert discovery. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs now have had sufficient time

to obtain discovery as to any experts disclosed by defendant, without negatively impacting

plaintiffs’ trial preparation or requiring further alterations to the trial schedule. The Court is

not persuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that defendant should be prohibited from offering

expert testimony by reason of the fact that the reports of defendants’ experts were

prepared after defendant received the reports of plaintiffs’ experts.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is hereby DENIED, the request being

both procedurally improper, see Civil L.R. 7-8 (providing all requests for sanctions must be

separately filed and noticed as motion), and substantively unconvincing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 194 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2