Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209-21/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
College of Health & Human Services, San Francisco State University
Defendant
Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre
Plaintiff

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

ORDER DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MODIFY

CASE SCHEDULING ORDER; AND

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

ORDER PROHIBITING PLAINTIFF’S

INTRODUCTION OF EXPERT

WITNESS TESTIMONY

(Docket Nos. 130 and 132)

Plaintiff Julia Keller-McIntyre has asked the Court to modify the case scheduling order. In

response, Defendant the College of Health & Human Services, San Francisco State University

(“University”) filed an objection to Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s request and also moved for an order

prohibiting Ms. Keller-McIntyre from introducing expert witness testimony. The latter is ultimately

the trial judge’s determination. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying

submissions, the Court hereby DENIES in part Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s motion (Docket No. 130) and

recommends that the University’s motion to exclude be denied (Docket No. 132 ).

I. DISCUSSION

A. Parties’ Objections to Court’s Order of October 31, 2006

On October 31, 2006, this Court issued an order regarding personnel records sought by Ms.

Keller-McIntyre. See Docket No. 104. Both parties timely objected, the University on November 8,

2006, see Docket No. 111, and Ms. Keller-McIntyre on November 13, 2006. See Docket No. 123;

see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (noting that, “[w]ithin 10 days after being served with a copy of the

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 134 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 6
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

1 With respect to nondispositive matters, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly

permit a party to respond to objections filed by the opposing party. See id. However, the Civil Local

Rules suggest that a response may be permitted. See Civ. L.R. 72-2 (“Unless otherwise ordered . . . ,

no response need be filed and no hearing will be held concerning an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s

order pursuant to FRCivP 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).”). The Civil Local Rules do not provide

a time frame for a response but it is fair to apply a ten-day rule. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (noting that,

with respect to reports and recommendations issued by a magistrate judge, a party has ten days to object

and then the opposing party has ten days to respond). The University served its objections on November

8, 2006. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e), Ms. Keller-McIntyre is deemed to have received

the objections on November 13, 2006. She then had ten days to file a response -- i.e., until November

27, 2006. No response was received by the Court at that time, and so it issued its order of November

29, 2006, to address the parties’ objections.

2

magistrate’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the order”). Judge Chesney thereafter

referred the objections to the undersigned for resolution. See Docket No. 120. On November 29,

2006, this Court issued an order addressing the parties’ objections. See Docket No. 127. 

Subsequently, on December 1, 2006, Ms. Keller-McIntyre provided additional information related to

the parties’ objections as part of her request to modify the case scheduling order.

The Court hereby STRIKES from Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s brief the additional information

related to the parties’ objections. Ms. Keller-McIntyre does not explain why she could not have

provided this information as part of her objections filed on November 13. Nor does she explain how

this information is responsive to the University’s objections filed on November 8. To the extent that

the information could, liberally construed, be deemed responsive to the University’s objections, the

response was not timely provided.1

 In any event, the information provided by Ms. Keller-McIntyre

does not affect the Court’s views on the merits of the parties’ objections. The November 29 order

therefore stands.

B. Review of Personnel Records by Plaintiff’s Expert, Dr. Barrett and Extension of Time to

Provide Expert Report by Dr. Barrett

Ms. Keller-McIntyre represents that she has retained Dr. Gerald V. Barrett as an expert. Ms.

Keller-McIntyre asks the Court for permission to have Dr. Barrett review the personnel file

documents produced by the University. The University does not appear to object in principle to Dr.

Barrett’s review of the documents; its sole contention is that Dr. Barrett should be excluded as an

expert witness because Ms. Keller-McIntyre failed to provide an expert report by him at the time she

disclosed his identity. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), the disclosure of an expert

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 134 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 6
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 To the extent Dr. Barrett has asked to examine documents from the past ten years, the Court

has already held that documents from the past three years are sufficient.

3

witness “shall, with respect to a witness who is retained or specially employed to provide expert

testimony in the case . . . , be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).

The problem with the University’s argument is that Dr. Barrett could not prepare an expert

report without the personnel file documents. Therefore, the Court recommends that the University’s

request to prohibit expert testimony by Dr. Barrett be denied. To the extent Ms. Keller-McIntyre

wishes to show personnel file documents to Dr. Barrett (as her expert) so that he may prepare a

report, the Court notes that the Model Protective Order, which the Court instructed the parties to

sign, addresses disclosures of confidential documents to experts. In general, so long as a party’s

expert signs on to the protective order, then he or she may view documents designated confidential

by the other party.2

The only issue remaining with respect to Dr. Barrett is Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s request that,

once the University produces the documents from the personnel records, Dr. Barrett be given thirty

days to review and prepare an expert report. This request is DENIED in part. Ms. Keller-McIntyre

does not explain why thirty days is necessary for Dr. Barrett to review and prepare a report. Indeed,

given the limited scope of documents being produced, three weeks should be sufficient. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that, once documents are produced by the University, Ms.

Keller-McIntyre shall have three weeks to serve an expert report by Dr. Barrett. The University

shall then have two weeks to take his deposition, if it deems a deposition necessary.

C. Extension of Time to Obtain Expert Report by Dr. Gabby

Ms. Keller-McIntyre has asked the Court for an additional forty-five days to obtain an expert

report from Dr. James Gabby. The request is DENIED. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order may be modified only upon

a showing of good cause and by leave of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). There is good cause

if the pretrial schedule “‘cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension.’ If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 134 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.23d 1080,

1087 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 1983 advisory committee notes (“[T]he court

may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

diligence of the party seeking the extension.”); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of

the party seeking the amendment.”). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence

and offers no reason for a grant of relief. 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.; see also 3-16 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -

- Civ. § 16.14[1][b] (stating that “[t]he existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the

modification . . . is irrelevant to the moving party’s exercise of diligence and does not show good

cause”).

Ms. Keller-McIntyre has failed to demonstrate diligence in obtaining a report from Dr.

Gabby by December 1, 2006. Ms. Keller-McIntyre has known about Dr. Gabby since the inception

of this case. In fact, according to her brief, she has known about Dr. Gabby since February 2000,

when he began to treat her for schizophrenia. Moreover, as established by the letter from Dr.

Gabby’s daughter, Ms. Keller-McIntyre has known that Dr. Gabby is disabled (or potentially

disabled) since September 7, 2006. She had nearly three months to pursue the matter and obtain a

report from Dr. Gabby by December 1, 2006.

The Court notes, however, that this ruling does not necessarily prevent Ms. Keller-McIntyre

from calling Dr. Gabby as a witness in this case as her treating physician. See First Nat’l Mortg. Co.

v. Fed. Realty Inv. Trust, No. C-03-02013 RMW, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57113, at *45 (N.D. Cal.

Aug. 2, 2006) (Whyte, J.) (“The majority rule is that ‘Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports are not required as a

prerequisite to a treating physician expressing opinions as to causation, diagnosis, prognosis and

extent of disability where they are based on the treatment.’”); see also Castillo v. City & County of

San Francisco, No. C 05-00284 WHA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13698, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9,

2006) (Alsup, J.) (noting that “a treating physician ordinarily is not employed or specially retained

and need not prepare [an expert] report so long as his or her name and identity are disclosed”). The

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 134 Filed 12/12/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Court therefore recommends that the University’s motion to prohibit expert testimony from Dr.

Gabby be denied.

D. Extension of Time to Obtain Expert Report by Dr. Bryant

Ms. Keller-McIntyre has asked the Court for an additional thirty days to obtain an expert

report from Dr. C. Martel Bryant. The request is DENIED. 

Similar to the above, Ms. Keller-McIntyre has failed to demonstrate diligence. Ms. KellerMcIntyre has known about Dr. Bryant since the inception of this case; in fact, she claims that he has

treated her for almost thirty years. Given this knowledge, Ms. Keller-McIntyre fails to explain why

she was not able to meet with him and obtain an expert report by December 1, 2006.

As above, this ruling does not necessarily preclude Ms. Keller-McIntyre from calling Dr.

Bryant as a witness in this case as her treating physician. Therefore, the Court recommends that the

University’s motion to exclude Dr. Bryant’s expert testimony be denied.

E. Extension of Time to Contact Other Experts

Finally, Ms. Keller-McIntyre asks for an additional forty-five days to contact other

physicians that have treated her for recent physical problems. The request is moot. Ms. KellerMcIntyre does not need the Court’s permission to contact third parties.

II. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s request to modify the case scheduling

order is denied, except that she will have three weeks from receipt of the personnel file documents to

serve the report of Dr. Barrett. The Court recommends that the University’s motion for an order

prohibiting expert witness testimony be denied.

This order disposes of Docket No. 130.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 134 Filed 12/12/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre

P.O. Box 320662

San Francisco, CA 94132

415/314-4204 (cell)

415/405-3943 (work)

ALL OTHER COUNSEL/PARTIES TO

RECEIVE ORDER VIA ELECTRONIC

FILING

Dated: December 12, 2006 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 134 Filed 12/12/06 Page 6 of 6