Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00671-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert D. Gentry
Plaintiff
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT D. GENTRY,

NO. CIV. S-09-0671 LKK/GGH 

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY, and 

Does 1-100, 

Defendants.

 /

On March 2, 2010, defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment set to be heard on April 5, 2010. On March 22, 2010,

plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant’s motion. This

opposition heavily relied upon a declaration from plaintiff’s

expert witness, David F. Peterson. On March 29, 2010, defendant

filed a reply brief. Along with this brief, defendant filed

objections to Peterson’s declaration. In essence, defendant argued

that because plaintiff filed Peterson’s expert report eight days

after the report was due under this court’s scheduling order and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. 

Pursuant to this court’s June 3, 2009 scheduling order, expert

disclosures and reports were due on December 10, 2009. On this

Case 2:09-cv-00671-LKK -KJN Document 48 Filed 04/01/10 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

 Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment will be 1

heard even if the court does not reopen law and motion. 

2

date, plaintiff disclosed his expert, but indicated that the report

would be submitted to defendant on December 18, 2009. On December

11, 2009, defendant filed objections to plaintiff’s disclosure

because it violated this court’s scheduling order and Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 26. In response, plaintiff filed two affidavits

on December 18, 2009. The affidavit of Peterson indicated that the

delay was because he mistakenly calendared the deadline for

submission of the report. Peterson also notes that the documents

he needed to finalize the report were only sent to him on December

9, 2009. The affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel explains that he had

been trying to obtain these necessary documents since November 24,

2009, but defendant only produced them on December 4, 2009.

Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that he did not personally receive

the documents until December 8, 2009, when he shipped them to

Peterson via overnight delivery. Plaintiff, however, never filed

a motion to amend the scheduling order or a motion to compel

defendants to produce these necessary documents. It nonetheless

appears to the court that plaintiff may have good cause to amend

this court’s scheduling order. 

For this reason, the court ORDERS plaintiff to file a motion

to amend the scheduling order within fourteen (14) days of the

issuance of this order. This motion should also indicate whether

plaintiff believes that discovery and/or law and motion should be 1

reopened, and if so, for how long. Defendant shall file an

Case 2:09-cv-00671-LKK -KJN Document 48 Filed 04/01/10 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

3

opposition to this motion within fourteen (14) days of service of

plaintiff’s motion. This opposition shall also indicate whether

defendant believes that discovery and/or law and motion should be

reopened, and if so, for how long. 

The court further orders that the hearing on defendant’s

motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 31, is VACATED. A new hearing

date will be set after the court resolves plaintiff’s motion to

amend the scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00671-LKK -KJN Document 48 Filed 04/01/10 Page 3 of 3