IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 17, 2012
ANGIE MELISSA CASTRO, BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM BLANCO ESTELA CASTRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ANGEL ANTONIO MENDOZA SARAVIA, BLANCA ESTELA CASTRO, TERESA REYNA MENDOZA-SARAVIA, AND PEDRO MENDOZA,
CITY OF MENDOTA, COUNTY OF FRESNO, WEST COAST AMMUNITIONS, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
ORDER FOR RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
The Court took Defendants' motion under submission as of August 27, 2012. Upon further review, the Court believes that an additional response from Plaintiffs is necessary. As part of Defendants' reply, they make evidentiary objections against some of the evidence offered by Plaintiffs in opposition. In particular, Defendants have objected that certain opinions by Plaintiffs' in the declaration of expert Ronnie Williams are outside the scope of Williams's Rule 26 expert report. The objection is made against Plaintiffs' Undisputed Facts 31, 35, and 36 (Doc. 107-2), and also as part of Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Undisputed Facts 38, 39, 40, and 41 (Doc. 107-1). The Court takes this objection to mean that the particular opinions offered by Williams was not included in his expert report, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i).*fn1 A failure to disclose information required by Rule 26(a)(2) implicates the exclusionary rule of Rule 37(c)(1).
Generally, Plaintiffs before this Court file a response to evidentiary objections that are made in a moving party's reply. However, Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants' objections. The Court will give Plaintiffs a formal opportunity to respond.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. As explained above, Plaintiffs may file a response to the objections to Mr. Williams' declaration as soon as possible, but no later than 9:30 a.m. on September 20, 2012; and 2. Defendants' may file a response to no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 21, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE