Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WESTERN DIVISION
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs.
LED ZEPPELIN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER
CONFIRMING FEBRUARY 11,
2016 DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DOES
NOT APPLY TO EXPERT
DEPOSITIONS
1
2
3
(1)
by February 11, 2016 even though initial expert reports were not
10
(2)
Defendants contend that the Courts Order for Jury Trial, as well as
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiffs interpretation leads to the absurd and patently unfair result that the Court
16
barred all expert depositions in this case, in contravention of Federal Rule of Civil
17
18
effect to the Order for Jury Trials provision that experts are per Rule 26 and
19
20
Second, plaintiff does not even try to dispute that his initial reports were ruled
21
inadmissible; that it would have been a waste for defendants to depose his experts as
22
23
inability to depose his experts on the new reports that plaintiff provided on May 2,
24
2016.
25
26
27
28
application to extend the scheduled dates confirms that plaintiff is confusing issues
and that at no time did defendants counsel state or agree that expert depositions had
to be completed by February 11, 2016, the day after initial expert reports were due.
Rather, defendants counsel raised early on that the deadline for initial expert reports
was close to the February 25, 2016 deadline to file dispositive motions and that, as a
result, plaintiff stood to be prejudiced by rebuttal reports being provided after his
opposition was due to defendants summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Pltfs
Oppn. Decl. (Doc. 211-1) at Exh. 1 (Anderson Dec. 28, 2015 e-mail) at 4-5 (on
10
experts, defendants experts are by way of rebuttal, and under Rule 26 rebuttal
11
reports arent due until March 11, after the deadline for defendants to file their
12
motion for summary judgment). Since defendants have always understood from
13
the Courts Order for Jury Trial that Rule 26, not the February 11, 2016 discovery
14
cut-off, governed experts, there was no reason for defendants to seek a change to the
15
discovery cut-off.
16
Defendants respectfully request that the Court confirm that the February 11,
17
2016 discovery cut-off does not apply to expert disclosures and depositions and that
18
defendants may proceed with the depositions of plaintiffs experts on May 17-19,
19
2016.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3