Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634-22/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monsanto Company
Counter-claimant
The Regents of the University of California
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-0634 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS

MONSANTO COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before this court is defendant Monsanto’s request to strike the declaration of Dr. Nikos

Panayotatos pursuant to Civ. L. R. 7-11, which is attached as Tab 1 to the expert report of Dr.

Richard Flavell. Monsanto claims that the Panayotatos declaration is attached as an attempt

by the Regents to circumvent the court’s previous order restricting each party to four testifying

experts. 

Monsanto’s request is DENIED. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 703, Flavell may properly

provide expert testimony that relies on facts provided to him by a third party. Because Flavell

may be cross-examined on the contents of Panayotatos’ declaration, Monsanto will suffer no

prejudice from its inclusion. 

To the extent that Monsanto’s objection is based additionally on its need to have a fifth

testifying expert to refute the Panayotatos declaration, the court notes only that Monsanto did

not previously request, and does not clearly now request, that the court modify its prior pretrial

order and grant leave to designate an additional expert witness. Such a request, if it had

been made in a timely fashion, may well have been granted. However as the discovery cutoff

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 391 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

date is tomorrow and because granting such a request would necessitate a significant delay

in the pretrial schedule, it is simply too late for this relief. 

This order fully adjudicates the matter listed at no. 371 on the clerk’s docket for this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 391 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 2