Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00820/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00820-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard Johnson
Plaintiff
Humberto Rodriguez
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Leonard Johnson is proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the United States magistrate 

judge. Local Rule 302.

On June 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of an expert witness. (ECF No. 

44.) . The Court heard argument at the Pretrial Conference on June 11, 2015 and gave its tentative 

ruling from the bench after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. 

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for appointment of a 

medical expert, during the summary judgment motion phase of this case. Pursuant to Rule 702 of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence, “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the 

trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert 

by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or 

LEONARD JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00820-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT 

APPOINTED EXPERT WITNESS

[ECF No. 44]

Case 1:12-cv-00820-SAB Document 47 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Under Rule 706, the Court may on its own motion, or on the motion of 

a party appoint an expert witness. Fed. R. Evid. 706 (a). 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied without prejudice. In this instance, the Court finds that 

appointment of an expert is not necessary or appropriate at this time. First, Plaintiff’s request is 

untimely as discovery closed on June 2, 2014, and Plaintiff failed to provide timely disclosure of such 

expert pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(D). In addition, Plaintiff based upon the proffer given at the hearing 

as to his intended use of the expert, to show the damages portion of the excessive force claim, Plaintiff 

has failed to demonstrate the need for an expert witness to aid the Court’s understanding of the 

excessive force claim and resulting damage. Hence, there is no basis at this time for appointment 

under Rule 706. To the extent Plaintiff finds an expert witness for use at trial, Plaintiff may renew the 

instant motion consistent with the rules of law and providing the necessary disclosure to the 

defendant.. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of an expert witness pursuant to Fed. 

R. Evid. 706 is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00820-SAB Document 47 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 2