Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flores v. Merced Irrigation Dist.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION


August 17, 2010

RODRIGO FLORES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY, DAN POPE, AND ROBERT BLUM, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

JOINT STIPULATION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER THAT THERE SHALL BE NO EXCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERTS OR EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT REPORTS ON JULY 20, 2010 AND ORDER

Rodrigo Flores ("Plaintiff") and Merced Irrigation District, Dan Pope, and Robert Blum (hereinafter "Defendants"), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to and request the Court enter an order that there shall be no exclusion of Plaintiff's experts or expert testimony based upon Plaintiff's failure to disclose the expert reports of retained experts, Phillip Allman and James Schmidtke, on July 20, 2010.

This order is needed to avoid unnecessary motion work and to preserve Plaintiff's right to call expert witnesses in support of his case at trial. Pursuant to the Court's December 23, 2009 and March 23, 2010 scheduling orders, on July 20, 2010, Plaintiff disclosed the names, experience, and qualifications of the experts he intends to call at trial but failed to provide the retained experts' written reports in this initial disclosure. Instead, the retained experts' reports were provided to Defendants' counsel on July 27, 2010, one week past the Court ordered deadline of July 20, 2010.

Pursuant to this Stipulation, Plaintiff further agrees to withdraw the two non-retained treating experts set forth in Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure. The two non-retained experts who are being withdrawn are Jack Newins and Dr. Al Montoya.

Good Cause exists for the granting of this order because:

(a) Plaintiff predominately complied with initial Scheduling Order by timely providing Defendants with the names, qualifications, subject matter, and experience of the experts he intended to call at trial.

(b) Plaintiff's failure to provide the retained experts' reports was due to unintentional internal scheduling error.

(c) Plaintiff has since provided the retained experts' reports to the Defendants.

(d) Plaintiff has already agreed and stipulated to allow the Defendants one extra week of time for Defendants' to disclose their supplemental/rebuttal expert reports.

(e) Plaintiff has already agreed and stipulated to allow the Defendants priority in deposing Plaintiff's designated experts.

As such, both parties ask this Court to order that there shall be no exclusion of Plaintiff's experts or expert testimony based upon Plaintiff's failure to disclose his retained expert reports on July 20, 2010. Defendants still retain the right to move to exclude Plaintiff's experts or expert testimony based on any other appropriate or permissible grounds.

Date: August 16, 2010

MURRAY & ASSOCIATES DALEY & HEFT

Lawrence D. Murray Attorney for Plaintiff

Athena B. Troy Attorney for Defendant

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR ORDER

HAVING READ AND CONSIDERED THE FOREGOING, and good cause appearing:

The foregoing is the order of the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100817

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.