ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEEM PLAINTIFFS'
DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS TIMELY AND VACATING APRIL 10, 2013
HEARING (ECF Nos. 49, 59, 60)
Plaintiffs filed this civil rights action on May 27, 2011, against the State of California, Eugene Brathwaite, and Sylvia Thomas alleging illegal search, seizure, and detention based upon the confiscation of Plaintiff's business records pursuant to a search warrant. (ECF No. 1.) A first amended complaint was filed on September 9, 2011. (ECF No. 15.) Following the initial scheduling conference, a scheduling order issued on January 13, 2012. (ECF No. 24.) The docket entry for the scheduling order stated that expert witness designation was due by April 5, 2013, however the scheduling order itself stated that the parties were to disclose all expert witness on or before February 1, 2013, and failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2), (A), (B), and (C) and include all information thereunder may result in the exclusion of testimony or evidence. (ECF No. 24 at 2:9-14.)
On March 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation to extend the discovery and motion dates set forth in the September 9, 2011 scheduling order. (ECF No. 46.) On March 5, 2013, District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill denied the parties' stipulation to extend the dates in this action. (ECF No. 48.)
On March 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to deem Plaintiffs' designation of expert witnesses timely. (ECF No. 49.) Defendants filed an opposition on March 27, 2013, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on April 1, 2013. (ECF Nos. 59, 60.) Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the papers and vacates the hearing set for April 10, 2012, and rules as follows.
II. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEEM EXPERT DISCLOSURES TIMELY
Plaintiffs bring this motion on the ground that they relied on the dates set forth in the docket text to calendar the date for expert witness disclosure as April 5, 2013. Plaintiffs contend that it was not until they received Defendants' expert witness disclosure on February 4, 2013, that they realized the date had been incorrectly calendared. At that time, Plaintiffs mailed a letter to Defendants, dated February 5, 2013, proposing that the parties enter into a stipulation to extend the non-expert and expert discovery cut-off dates and the deadline to disclose expert witnesses to March 15, 2013. On February 6, 2013, Plaintiffs served expert witness disclosures on Defendants. The parties met and conferred on February 6 and 7, 2013, and agreed to stipulate to the extensions of the discovery deadlines and the stipulation was filed with the court on March 1, 2013. Plaintiffs argue that the timing of their designation of expert witnesses, four days after the date set forth in the scheduling order, did not deny Defendants the opportunity to conduct expert discovery.
Defendants reply that Plaintiffs' motion does not contain any citation that would authorize the relief requested and is nothing more than a motion for reconsideration that fails to meet the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 or Local Rule 230(j) and should be denied. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' expert disclosure was late and failed to include a report that could be analyzed by Defendants' expert. Defendants agreed that the damage caused by this failure could be remedied if the court would grant an extension of the discovery deadlines, however the District Judge denied the stipulation.
Plaintiffs reply that Defendants have failed to address the key issue here, that the designation of their expert witness was late due to their reliance on the docket entry in calendaring the due date and the lack of prejudice to Defendants.
Initially, the Court rejects Defendants argument that this is actually a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines. The denial of the stipulation to extend the discovery deadlines was not based on, and did not address, Plaintiffs' contention that the designation of experts should be deemed timely due to the error on the Court docket. Since the issue was not previously raised, the Court finds that the instant motion should be considered on the merits. Plaintiffs move for relief from the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and for their expert disclosures to be deemed to have been timely served.
There are no rigid rules regarding permitting late filing attributable to an attorney's negligence. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir. 2004). In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 provides that when an act "must be done by a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B). To determine if neglect was excusable courts generally consider 1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; 2) the length of the delay and the potential impact on the proceedings; 3) the reason for the delay; and 4) whether the moving party acted in good faith. Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855-56.