Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04464/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-04464-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Marcus
Defendant
Alexander Warren
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

ALEXANDER WARREN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

GEORGE MARCUS,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-13-04464 DMR

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT

DISCLOSURE

On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff Alexander Warren filed his opposition to Defendant George

Marcus’s motion for summary judgment. Included as evidence in support of his opposition was the

expert report of retained expert Roger Clark (“Clark report”). (Pointer Decl., Dec. 18, 2014 ¶ 6 Ex.

E.) In his reply, Defendant objects to the entire Clark report on the grounds that Plaintiff did not

disclose Clark as an expert prior to the expert disclosure deadline of November 12, 2014 or the

November 25, 2014 rebuttal disclosure deadline. (Def’s Reply 10-11; see also Docket No. 20.) 

Defendant submitted Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure Statement listing Clark as a retained expert which

is dated December 22, 2014. (Dale Allen Decl., Dec. 29, 2014 ¶ 6 Ex. A.) Defense counsel states

that Plaintiff did not serve a copy of the Clark report on Defendant prior to filing his opposition to

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dale Allen Decl. ¶ 2.) Expert discovery closed on

December 9, 2014.

Case 4:13-cv-04464-DMR Document 59 Filed 01/07/15 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

By no later than January 12, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a statement setting forth the exact dates

he disclosed to Defendant his expert, Clark, and disclosed Clark’s expert report. If Plaintiff did not

disclose Clark and/or his expert report by the applicable deadline, he shall also state why his failure

to timely disclose was “substantially justified” or “is harmless.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 

Plaintiff’s statement shall not exceed two pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2015

 DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:13-cv-04464-DMR Document 59 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 2