Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02848/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02848-20/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clyde & Co. US LLP
Defendant
Doublevision Entertainment, LLC
Plaintiff
David A. Gabianelli
Miscellaneous
Navigators Specialty Insurance Company
Defendant
The Navigators Group
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’ 

PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DOUBLEVISION ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, 

a Tennessee limited liability company, as 

assignee of Commercial Escrow Services, Inc., 

a California corporation, and Antoinette 

Hardstone, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY; a New York corporation; THE 

NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC., a New York 

corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:14-cv-02848-WHA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’ 

PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 

Case 3:14-cv-02848-WHA Document 104 Filed 04/21/15 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

 2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’ 

PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 

With respect to the parties’ proffered experts, the parties, by and through their respective 

counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS, the parties simultaneously designated their respective experts on March 31, 2015 

and exchanged Rule 26 expert reports on that date, rather than engaging in the sequential exchange 

contemplated by Paragraph 5 the Case Management Order (“CMO”) entered by the Court in this 

matter [Dkt. No. 22]; 

WHEREAS, two of the plaintiff’s designated experts (Messrs. Stephen Prater and Mark 

Fredkin), and the defendant’s expert (Steven Crane), offer opposing opinions on largely overlapping 

issues; 

WHEREAS, Paragraph 7 of the CMO allows the parties, by stipulation, to relax the 

requirements of the CMO regarding the scope of permissible opinion testimony offered by the parties’ 

retained experts, 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that Messrs. Prater and Fredkin will be permitted to 

rebut the opinions offered by Mr. Crane, and Mr. Crane will be permitted to rebut the opinions offered 

by Messrs. Prater and Fredkin, without need of written rebuttal reports, and the parties further agree 

that neither party will submit written rebuttal reports. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: April 14, 2015 ROSENFELD, MEYER & SUSMAN LLP 

By: /s/ Ryan M. Lapine 

 Ryan M. Lapine 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DOUBLEVISION ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-02848-WHA Document 104 Filed 04/21/15 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

 3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’ 

PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 

Dated: April 14, 2015 CLYDE & CO US LLP 

By: /s/ W. Andrew Miller

 David A. Gabianelli 

W. Andrew Miller 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________ 

 United States District Judge 

April 21,2015.

Case 3:14-cv-02848-WHA Document 104 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 3