Lawman v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01202

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re {{140}} Plaintiff's Ninth Motion in Limine.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 GARY RICHARD LAWMAN, 6 Case No. 15-cv-01202-DMR Plaintiff, 7 v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S NINTH 8 MOTION IN LIMINE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 9 FRANCISCO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 140 10 Defendants. 11 The court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 9 regarding defense expert Jeffrey 12 A. Martin's supplemental report and opinions, and Defendants' opposition thereto. [Docket Nos. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 140, 170.] This matter is suitable for decision without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 14 The court allowed Plaintiff to submit an untimely report by expert David Dusenbury. The 15 court subsequently permitted Plaintiff to serve a supplemental Dusenbury report because 16 Defendants were late in producing certain documents relevant to Dusenbury's opinions. [Docket 17 No. 106.] The court did not authorize multiple supplemental reports, but Dusenbury nevertheless 18 supplemented his report three times. Martin filed a supplemental rebuttal report on May 12, 2016 19 report, which was timely only as to Dusenbury's May 2, 2016 supplemental report. 20 The court concludes that both parties contributed to the messy manner in which these expert reports were developed. The court will not strike Martin's supplemental report and 21 opinions. Plaintiff may depose Martin solely on the subject of his May 12, 2016 supplemental 22 report. The parties shall equally share the costs of the deposition, as well as Martin's expert fees. 23 The parties shall work together to schedule this deposition promptly. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 19, 2016 26 ______________________________________ 27 Donna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge 28