Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3
4
5
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
20 )
)
21 ) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
) Trial Date: December 3, 2008
22 )
)
23
24 I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:
25 1. I am counsel of record for Defendants and I am familiar with this proceeding.
26 facts in this declaration are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and I can testify
27 competently to them if called as a witness.
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME RE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE EXPERT REPORTS AFTER MAY 5,2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 118 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 2 of 14
1 2. The original scheduling order (filed May 31,2007) was modified by stipulation of
names,
3
4
26 8. It is not clear that the reports of examining physicians are subject to the disclosure
27 requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Although the Ninth Circuit does not appear to have addressed
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME RE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE EXPERT REPORTS AFTER MAY 5,2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 118 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 3 of 14
1 this issue, this District has. In Minnard v. Rotech Healthcare Inc., CIY. NO. S-06-1460 GEB
LJLd'UU 6 -r /." ,.U CaL Jan. 15, 2008), Honorable Gregory
3
Pursuant to
ex
9
20 13. A copy of Wasser permiSSJlOn to serve
23 motion:
24 Filing of Motion: May 5, 2008.
27 Hearing on Motion:
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF MARK A WASSER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME RE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE EXPERT REPORTS AFTER MAY 5,2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 118 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 4 of 14
1 15. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-144(b), one prior continuance was granted upon stipulation
were
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME RE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE EXPERT REPORTS AFTER MAY 5,2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 118 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 5 of 14
EXHIBIT A
1 •
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 118
•
Filed 05/05/2008
11/20/2007
Page 6 of 14
3
1 WHEREAS discovery is taking substantially longer than the parties anticipated because
21
22 Dated: November 15, 2007 OFFICE OF EUGENE
23
28
ORDER
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITB
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 118 Filed 05/05/2008 Page 10 of 14
13
January 6, 2007
21 Trial Date: December 3, 2008
22
23 TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
1 perform the Rule 35 examination Plaintiff after May 5, as soon as they can be prepared.
2 Defendants request that they be permitted to serve the report of Dr. Olson-Buchanan on or
21 Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
21 ) Trial Date: December 3,2008
)
22
23
24 I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:
28
-1-
1 2. Defendants have retained three expert witnesses and have disclosed their names,
2 addresses, qualifications and hourly rates to Plaintiff, however, Defendants need additional time
3 to nre:naJre serve
7 35 eXamlIJlatH)ll
21 Hollows discussed the interplay between Rule 26 and Rule 35 and, on the facts in Minnard, ruled
22 that the Defendant could rely on information "including a Rule 35 examination, taken after
23 designation and report issuance." Minnard, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6149, at *11. Other Districts
24 have split on the issue. See, e.g., Waggoner v. Ohio Central Railroad, Inc. 242 F.R.D. 413, 414
25 (S.D. OH, 2007); Furlong v. Circle Line Statute ofLiberty Ferry, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 65
26 (S.D.N.Y., 1995); and Shumaker v. West, 196 F.R.D. 454 (S.D.W.VA, 2000).
27 5. Thus, the reports of Dr. Burchuk and Dr. Sarkasian appear to be exempt from the
28 Rule 26 disclosure obligation. Defendants included these two physicians in their list of expert
-2-
1 witnesses out of a desire for full disclosure even though the Rule 35 exams have not yet
2 occurred.
3 6.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28