UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 28, 2008
BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
MARC CHANTAL USA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION; MARC CHANTAL AMERICA, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge United States District Court
PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST
On April 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended witness list in accordance with Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 153.) On April 22, 2008, Defendant filed objections to Plaintiff's proposed witness list, arguing that Plaintiff never disclosed certain witnesses either in its initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(I) or in supplemental disclosures under Rule 26(e)(1)(A). (Doc. No. 155.) The Court referred the parties to the magistrate judge to issue a report and recommendation regarding Plaintiff's undisclosed witnesses. (Doc. No. 164.)
Prior to the conference before the magistrate judge, the parties met and conferred; as a result, only five of Plaintiff's proposed witnesses remained in dispute: Beth Barror, Jerry Kohl, Monica Bolin, Richard Lewis and Paul Widosch. On June 10, 2008, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 175.) The magistrate judge recommended as follows:
1. Ms. Barror and Mr. Kohl should not be excluded as witnesses, and discovery should be re-opened to allow Defendant to depose Ms. Barror and Mr. Kohl and Defendant's expense.
2. Ms. Bolin should not be excluded as a witness. However, Defendant's request to re-open discovery as to Ms. Bolin should be denied.
3. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Widosch should not be excluded as witnesses, and discovery should be re-opened to allow Defendant to depose them. The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff bear the deposition costs as to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Widosch, including travel of attorneys and witnesses, court reporter and videographer fees, and other related costs except attorneys' fees. (See Doc. No. 175.)
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file and serve objections to the magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter within 10 days after being served with a copy of the order. To date, no party has filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations. Under Rule 72(a), the time for doing so is long past. Accordingly, the Court adopts in full the magistrate judge's report and recommendations.
On August 4, 2008, the Court held a pretrial conference. (See Doc. No. 181.) The Court set a trial date of January 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.. Motions in limine will be heard January 20, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. No later than September 5, 2008, the parties shall lodge a revised proposed joint pretrial order consistent with the August 4, 2008 pretrial conference and the magistrate judge's determination regarding the five witnesses discussed above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.