Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant
Eric Edward Juell
Plaintiff
David Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted.

2 Defendants do not notice the motion as a Rule 16

motion, nor do they argue the merits of the Rule 16 motion in

their briefs. However, defendants seek leave to depose four of

plaintiff’s experts after the deadline set forth in the Pretrial

Scheduling Order (“PSO”) and seek leave to designate a rebuttal

expert after the deadline set forth in the PSO. In order for the

court to grant the requests sought by defendants, good cause must

be demonstrated pursuant to Rule 16. As such, the court

(continued...)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ERIC EDWARD JUELL,

NO. CIV S-05-0378 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

and DAVID WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to

preclude plaintiff from offering testimony of an economic expert,

pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 and

to modify the pretrial scheduling order, pursuant to Rule 16.2

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 5
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(...continued)

construes defendants’ motion as a motion to preclude as well as a 

request to modify the PSO under Rule 16.

3 Because oral argument will not be of material

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

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

2

Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion to preclude the economic

expert, but does not oppose modification of the pretrial

scheduling order. For the reasons set forth below, defendants’

motions are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.3

BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint in Nevada

County Superior Court against defendants, alleging state claims

of discrimination on the basis of age, harassment on the basis of

age, wrongful termination in violation of public policy and

failure to prevent harassment in violation of California

Government Code § 12940(k). Defendants removed the case from

state court in February 2005 on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. 

On May 2, 2005, the court issued a Pretrial Scheduling

Order, setting the deadline for designation of experts for

January 6, 2006 and the discovery deadline for March 3, 2006. On

January 17, plaintiff belatedly disclosed five expert witnesses,

four healthcare experts and one economic expert. Defendants

subsequently filed this motion, seeking to extend discovery

deadlines to depose the healthcare experts and to designate a

rebuttal expert. Defendants also seek to preclude the testimony

of the economic expert.

///// 

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 03/24/06 Page 2 of 5
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

ANALYSIS

A. Modification of the Pretrial Scheduling Order

A pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The district

court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule

16 primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party requesting

the amendment. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to

the party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. 

The moving party may establish good cause by showing “(1)

that [he or she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating

a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance

with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding

[his or her] diligent efforts to comply, because of the

development of matters which could not have been reasonably

foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling

conference; and (3) that [he or she] was diligent in seeking

amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that [he

or she] could not comply with the order.” Jackson v. Laureate,

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)(citations omitted).

Defendants have demonstrated good cause to modify the

Pretrial Scheduling Order to extend the discovery deadlines

solely as they apply to deposing plaintiffs’ belatedly disclosed

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 03/24/06 Page 3 of 5
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 Defendants improperly noticed this motion before the

magistrate judge on February 15, 2006. The magistrate judge

vacated the date set to hear this motion, and defendants properly

filed the motion before the court on February 22, 2006.

4

experts and to designating a rebuttal expert, if necessary. 

Defendants were diligent in assisting the court in creating a

workable scheduling order. Further, the delay in taking the

depositions was caused by plaintiff’s delay in disclosing his

experts. Defendants could not have anticipated that plaintiff

would disclose his experts after the deadline for expert

disclosure had passed. Finally, defendants filed this motion on

February 22, 2006,4 promptly after it became apparent that they

could not comply with the scheduling order. Because defendants

have demonstrated good cause to modify the pretrial scheduling

order, defendants’ motion to extend the deadlines for deposing

plaintiff’s belatedly disclosed experts and to designate a

rebuttal expert is GRANTED. 

The scheduling order is modified as follows: Defendants

must disclose any rebuttal experts by April 10, 2006. All expert

discovery must be completed by May 8, 2006. The dispositive

motion hearing deadline is July 21, 2006. The Final Pretrial

Conference is set for September 22, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. The trial

date will remain set for November 28, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

B. Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Economic Expert

Rule 37(c) provides that a party that fails to disclose

information relating to expert designation and opinions pursuant

to Rule 26 is not “permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a

hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so

disclosed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). However, Rule 37 also

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 03/24/06 Page 4 of 5
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

provides that this sanction is not appropriate where such a

failure to disclose is harmless. Id. As such, the party seeking

exclusion of testimony under Rule 37 must demonstrate prejudice

by opposing party’s failure to disclose. See Paulissen v. United

State Life Ins. Co., 205 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

Defendants contend that they are prejudiced by plaintiff’s

untimeliness in disclosing the economic expert because

“defendants are left with very little time to depose five

separate witnesses before they must prepare summary judgment.” 

(Def.s’ Mot. to Preclude Expert Testimony, filed Feb. 22, 2006,

at 6). However, based upon the court’s grant of defendants’ Rule

16 motion to extend the time to depose plaintiff’s experts, the

dates of the dispositive motion hearing deadline and Final

Pretrial Conference date have also been modified. As such,

defendants will not be prejudiced in preparing their summary

judgment motion by plaintiff’s untimely disclosure of the

economic expert. Therefore, defendants’ motion to preclude the

testimony of plaintiff’s belatedly designated economic expert is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2006 

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 34 Filed 03/24/06 Page 5 of 5