Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01122-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Nevada City
Defendant
Susan Colbert
Plaintiff
Bob Micander
Defendant
Paul Rohde
Defendant
Lou Trovato
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN COLBERT,

No. 2:06-cv-1122-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF NEVADA, a municipality,

LOU TROVATO, in his capacity as

Chief of Police for the CITY OF

NEVADA, BOB MICANDER,

individually and in his

capacity as a police officer

for the CITY OF NEVADA, PAUL

ROHDE, individually and in his

capacity as a police officer

for the CITY OF NEVADA CITY,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Susan Colbert

(“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Lou Travato, Bob Micander,

and Paul Rohde, individually and in their capacities as Nevada

City Police Officers, and Defendant Nevada City (“Defendants”)

violated Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

rights under the Constitution of the State of California, and

committed acts of negligence and assault and battery. 

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

By stipulation, Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference and

negligent training and supervision have been dismissed with

prejudice. Now before this Court is Defendant’s Motion for

Sanction to preclude Plaintiff from introducing expert testimony

for failure to comply with this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order

and the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(2)(B).1

BACKGROUND

The Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO”) in this case required

disclosure of expert witnesses that each party proposed to tender

at trial not later than April 20, 2007. The PTSO also requires

compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Garrett Ryle, was not

disclosed as either a percipient or expert witness who would be

testifying on behalf of Plaintiff until August 21, 2007, three

months after the deadline. Even then, Plaintiff’s disclosure was

not in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

However, Defendants’ disclosure, made April 20, 2007, names

Dr. Ryle as a non-retained expert. Further, the report of

Defendants’ retained expert, Dr. Edward Younger, III, includes a

summary of his review and analysis of Dr. Ryle’s treatment

records regarding Plaintiff. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Defendants therefore were aware, by the time of the disclosure

deadline, of Plaintiff’s treating physician and the medical

records regarding Plaintiff’s treatment as it relates to this

action.

STANDARD

Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides, in relevant part that "[a] party that without

substantial justification fails to disclose information required

by Rule 26(a) ... is not, unless such failure is harmless,

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)(1). "In addition to or in lieu of this sanction,

the court, on motion and after affording an opportunity to be

heard, may impose other appropriate sanctions." These other

sanctions may include the payment of reasonable expenses and

attorney's fees caused by the failure, any of the sanctions

authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), or (C), or informing the

jury of the failure to make the disclosure. Id. The issuance of

sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) is left to the discretion of the

court. Yeti By Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d

1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001).

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 6
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 sanctions to be imposed under Rule 37(c)(1) have been

described as "self-executing" and "automatic." See Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 37(c)(1993 Amendments) (stating that the

rule "provides a self-executing sanction for failure to make a

disclosure required by Rule 26(a), without the need for a motion

under subdivision (a)(2)(A)"); see also Yeti By Molly, Ltd., 259

F.3d at 1106 (acknowledging that the sanction under Rule 37(c)(1)

is "self-executing" and "automatic").

The text of Rule 37 also indicates, however, that

consideration must be given to the harm, if any, caused by the

alleged failure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); see also Advisory

Committee Notes to Rule 37(c) (1993 Amendments) ("Limiting the

automatic sanction to violations ‘without substantial

justification' coupled with the exception for violations that are

‘harmless,' is needed to avoid unduly harsh penalties in a

variety of situations."). The Ninth Circuit has determined that

the burden is on the party facing sanctions to prove

harmlessness. Yeti By Molly, Ltd., 259 F.3d at 1107.

ANALYSIS

1. Governing Law

Defendant brings this Motion for Sanction under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(b)(2)(B) for Plaintiff’s failure under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). 

The latter rule requires, inter alia, that the disclosure of

expert testimony be accompanied by a written report containing a

complete statement of all opinions to be expressed. 

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 6
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

Rule 37(b)(2) directly applies, by its text, to failures under

Rules 30(b)(6), 31(a), 35, and 26(f). It is Rule 37(c)(1) that

directly applies to failures pursuant to Rule 26(a), even though

the former also selectively incorporates and includes relief

available from Rule 37(b)(2)(B). Although the distinction would

not likely affect the outcome of this Court’s ruling, due

primarily to the discretion granted to courts in subdivision

(b)(2) to “make such orders in regard to the failure as are

just,” the analysis herein will be based on Rule 37(c)(1).

2. Harmless Delay

Plaintiff has shown that Defendant was reasonably informed

both as to the presence of Dr. Ryle as a potential percipient or

expert witness, and the basis for the opinions he may express at

trial, namely the treatment records of Plaintiff. Defendant, and

Defendant’s retained expert, Dr. Younger, have had ample time to

review the medical charts created by Dr. Ryle in his treatment of

Plaintiff. Little or no unfair surprise is likely to occur as

the result of Plaintiff’s failure to comply fully with the

Court’s scheduling order. Defendant is not likely to be “greatly

hampered” in its ability to examine Dr. Ryle about his analysis

of Plaintiff’s treatment. See Yeti by Molly Ltd., 259 F.3d at

1107. Therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 26, to

date, has been harmless, and not warranting of the unduly harsh

sanction of excluding a principal witness upon which Plaintiff’s

case may rely.

///

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 10/15/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

3. Plaintiff’s Compliance

Plaintiff shall correct any non-compliance with this Court’s

previous orders, including Rule 26(a), not later than Wednesday,

October 17, 2007. Specifically, Plaintiff shall file a written

report, signed by Dr. Ryle, containing a complete statement of

all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor,

the information used to form those opinions, and any exhibits to

be used in support for the opinions.

In addition, Plaintiff shall arrange for the deposition of

Dr. Ryle, which shall occur not later than November 9, 2007. In

light of the currently pending November 19, 2007 trial date,

Plaintiff and Defendant shall reach a mutually agreed to time and

location for said deposition. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion for

Sanction Precluding Expert Testimony is DENIED. Plaintiff shall

file a written report as stated above, and make Dr. Ryle

available for deposition not later than November 9, 2007 as

described above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01122-MCE -DAD Document 34 Filed 10/15/07 Page 6 of 6