Patton v. Thomas et al, No. 3:2014cv01489 - Document 76 (S.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Defendants' Oral Motion to Exclude Witnesses. Defendants' oral motion to exclude David Hilbish, Jackie McGee, Nicole Anderson, Naomi Lake, Mukesh Sanghadia, and Raymond Zeher is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 11/29/2016.(acc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD PATTON, Case No.: 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG Plaintiff, 12 13 14 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ ORAL MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES v. JALEH HANASSAB, an individual, FIRST LIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a California Corporation, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 20 Defendants have orally raised a discovery dispute alleging that six witnesses were 21 improperly disclosed and as such these witnesses should be barred from testifying at trial. 22 The six witnesses are David Hilbish, Jackie McGee, Nicole Anderson, Naomi Lake, 23 Mukesh Sanghadia, and Raymond Zeher (collectively “Subject Witnesses”). The parties 24 participated in a discovery conference call on November 18, 2016, and provided several 25 documents to the Court to aid in making a decision. Having considered the oral arguments 26 and the documents provided, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the Subject 27 Witnesses. 28 1 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “A party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties the 3 name, and if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have 4 discoverable information – along with the subjects of that information – that the disclosing 5 party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for 6 impeachment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). These disclosures must generally occur within 7 two weeks of the parties Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). The duty to 8 disclose, however, is continuing. “A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) … 9 must supplement or correct its disclosure … in a timely manner if the party learns that in 10 some material respect the disclosure is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or 11 corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the 12 discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) (emphasis added). The Advisory 13 Note on Rule 26(e) clarifies that there is “no obligation to provide supplemental or 14 corrective information that has been otherwise made known to the parties in writing or 15 during the discovery process...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee’s note (1993 16 amend.). However, “a passing reference in a deposition to a person with knowledge or 17 responsibilities who could conceivably be a witness does not satisfy a party’s disclosure 18 obligations.” Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 863 (9th Cir. 19 2014). 20 “If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) 21 or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a 22 motion, at a hearing, or at trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). The burden of proving that a party’s failure to disclose was either 24 substantially justified or harmless is on the party seeking to avoid sanctions. R& R Sails, 25 Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012). 26 III. BACKGROUND 27 Plaintiff Donald Patton is a Section 8 tenant who alleges that Defendants First Light 28 Property Management, Inc. and Jaleh Hanassab discriminated against him in violation of 2 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 state and federal law by attempting to evict him because of his sexual orientation, national 2 origin, and medical conditions of schizophrenia and alcoholism. Defendants deny that 3 Plaintiff has been discriminated against and assert that his claims are either false, or 4 imagined due to his ongoing mental illness. Defendants contend the attempts to evict 5 Plaintiff were lawful and that any damage or emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff was 6 due to his mental illness. 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 Defendants argue Plaintiff violated Rule 26 because Plaintiff did not disclose the 9 topic or scope of information the Subject Witnesses may provide in the initial disclosures. 10 Plaintiff contends the disclosure requirement was satisfied by his initial disclosures as well 11 as during the course of discovery through Plaintiff’s deposition and Plaintiff’s responses 12 to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of documents. 13 a. BACKGROUND 14 Plaintiff served on Defendants his initial disclosures on or about March 24, 2015. In 15 the initial disclosures, Plaintiff listed thirty-one potential witnesses, including five of the 16 six witnesses currently in dispute.1 Plaintiff identified David Hilbish, Jackie McGee, 17 Naomi Lake, and Raymond Zeher by name, address, and phone number. Nicole Anderson 18 was identified by Name and title. Mukesh Sanghadia was not disclosed in Plaintiff’s initial 19 disclosures. 20 The Court issued a Notice and Order for an Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) and 21 Case Management Conference on May 20, 2015, setting the conferences for June 17, 2015. 22 (ECF No. 25.) The parties were ordered to be prepared to discuss any objections to initial 23 disclosures made pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D). (Id. at 4.) No objections to initial 24 disclosures were made by Defendants. On or about August 31, 2015, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ Interrogatories Set 25 26 27 28 1 Although not currently in dispute, it is noteworthy that Defendants have not objected to any other witnesses allegedly not properly disclosed but who appear in the Final Pretrial Order. 3 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 One. Defendants propounded interrogatory nineteen which stated: 2 Please IDENTIFY each healthcare provider who has treated YOU at any time for any alleged injury for which YOU claim any defendant is responsible. 3 4 5 6 Plaintiff responded by identifying Naomi Lake and Mukesh Sanghadia as those that provided treatment to Plaintiff. Defendants propounded interrogatory twenty-two which stated: 9 Please IDENTIFY each PERSON who YOU contend has knowledge of any alleged emotional distress, stress or anxiety YOU claim to have suffered as a result of any act of defendant in this action, including each fact of which that PERSON has knowledge. 10 Plaintiff responded by identifying David Hilbish, Jackie McGee, Nicole Anderson, Naomi 11 Lake, Mukesh Sanghadia, and Raymond Zeher as those that had knowledge of alleged 12 emotional distress, stress or anxiety, and provided an address and phone number for each. 13 There is no indication that Defendants objected, on sufficiency grounds (or lodged any 14 objection at all) to Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ interrogatories, in particular nineteen 15 and twenty-two, prior to the present dispute.2 7 8 16 On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Exclude several witnesses and 17 documents improperly disclosed by Defendants under Rule 26. (See ECF No. 49.) 18 Defendants filed an Opposition to the motion on June 24, 2016, that included a cross- 19 motion to exclude several documents that Defendant’s claimed were improperly disclosed 20 under Rule 26. (See ECF No. 51.) Absent from this cross-motion to exclude for improper 21 disclosure was any mention of the Subject Witnesses. 22 On June 19, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order setting, among other dates, 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Although not relevant to the present dispute, Plaintiff did not provide an answer responsive to the second portion of the interrogatory requesting each fact the person knew. This is not relevant because Rule 26 does not require each fact that a witness may know be disclosed. The Advisory Notes to Rule 26 state the scope should indicate “briefly the general topics” of which a potential witness may testify. Notwithstanding this deficient response, Plaintiff’s response to interrogatory twenty-two was more than adequate to alert Defendant’s that individuals listed by Plaintiff in his response had knowledge of his “emotional distress, stress, or anxiety,” which is exactly what Defendants’ requested. 4 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 September 16, 2016 as the deadline the parties were to file their respective pretrial 2 disclosures and any subsequent objections. (ECF No. 28 at 5.) On September 16, 2016, 3 Plaintiff filed his Pretrial Disclosures which listed the Subject Witnesses, among others. 4 (See ECF No. 56.) Defendants filed a timely Objection to Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures 5 on that same day. (See ECF No. 58.) In their Objection, Defendants objected to witnesses 6 Troy Boyle and Ben Guillermo as being improperly disclosed pursuant to Rule 26. (ECF 7 No. 58 at 2.) Absent from this Objection to Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures was any mention 8 of the Subject Witnesses. 9 On November 16, 2016, the Honorable Judge Battaglia issued a Final Pretrial 10 Conference Order (“PTO”) listing David Hilbish and Jackie McGee as Plaintiff witnesses 11 and Nicole Anderson, Naomi Lake, Mukesh Sanghadia, and Raymond Zeher as Plaintiff 12 reserve witnesses. The PTO contains a brief description of the testimony these witnesses 13 may provide. There is no indication that Defendants objected to the description of the 14 testimony that may be provided by the disputed witnesses listed in the PTO. 15 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to exclude 16 as witnesses David Hilbish, Jackie McGee, Nicole Anderson, Naomi Lake, Mukesh 17 Sanghadia, and Raymond Zeher. 18 b. UNTIMELY OBJECTION 19 The Court finds that Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff’s initial disclosures is 20 untimely. Defendants had ample opportunity to object to Plaintiff’s initial disclosures 21 generally and the Subject Witnesses specifically. As a threshold matter, the Rule 26 22 requirement that a party amend their disclosures necessarily includes as a condition 23 precedent a party’s knowledge that its disclosures were deficient in the first place and 24 before the duty to amend is triggered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Given this, had Defendants 25 objected to the initial disclosures in a timely manner or had Plaintiff otherwise realized his 26 disclosures were deficient, Plaintiff would have had the opportunity and then the duty to 27 amend or supplement his disclosures. Plaintiff served his initial disclosures on or about 28 March 24, 2015, nearly twenty months ago. Nothing in the record nor in the documents 5 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 lodged with the Court indicates any objection to the initial disclosures occurred prior to the 2 present motion. 3 Defendants’ first formal opportunity to raise an objection to the initial disclosures 4 occurred during the ENE Conference held on June 17, 2015. In the order setting the 5 conference, the parties were ordered to be prepared to discuss potential objections to initial 6 disclosures at the ENE conference. Despite the Court’s order alerting the parties of the 7 opportunity to object to initial disclosures, Defendants made no objection to the initial 8 disclosures at the ENE Conference. 9 Defendants, in June of 2016, were again presented with an opportunity to raise an 10 objection to the Subject Witnesses in their cross-motion to exclude in response to Plaintiff 11 raising an issue very similar to the current issue – a Rule 26 disclosure violation. 12 Defendants failed to do so at that time. Defendants were presented with yet another 13 opportunity in September 2016 to object to these witnesses when Plaintiff filed his pretrial 14 disclosures, listing the Subject Witnesses. Defendants failed to object to the Subject 15 Witnesses despite the fact that Defendants objected to two other witnesses for improper 16 disclosure pursuant to Rule 26. 17 The Court is unaware of any authority granting an objection to initial disclosures 18 nineteen months after such disclosures were made and declines to do so at this time. Even 19 were the Court to set aside the fact there was no objection made to the initial disclosures, 20 the Court cannot ignore the fact that Defendants had multiple opportunities to raise the 21 present objection to the Subject Witnesses and Defendants did not do so. Defendants 22 cannot be heard to complain now that Plaintiff failed to comply (which he did not) with his 23 disclosure obligations. Given these opportunities, the Court finds that Defendants’ oral 24 motion to exclude the six witnesses is untimely. 25 c. WITNESS DISCLOSURE 26 The Court finds that even if Defendants’ objections were timely, Plaintiff satisfied 27 the requirements of Rule 26 because the scope of testimony to be provided was made 28 known to Defendants during the discovery process with the exception of a portion of 6 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 testimony to be offered by Nicole Anderson. 2 i. David Hilbish 3 Plaintiff has submitted documents he believes support the notion that Mr. David 4 Hilbish was disclosed in discovery. Plaintiff provided a copy of his deposition, his response 5 to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents, and his initial disclosures as 6 evidence that the scope of testimony that Mr. Hilbish may offer was sufficiently disclosed 7 to Defendants. Mr. Hilbish’s testimony is described as follows in the PTO: “Plaintiff’s 8 emotional distress.” 9 Plaintiff’s deposition occurred on October 8, 2015. During the deposition, Plaintiff 10 identified Mr. Hilbish as the person that provided Plaintiff with Ms. Lepine’s contact 11 information. Further, and more relevant to the issue at hand, Plaintiff stated in his 12 deposition that he provided Mr. Hilbish with evidence, or at a minimum informed Mr. 13 Hilbish, of an encounter with Mr. Lonnie Thomas, an agent of one of the defendants. 14 Defendants’ counsel inquired: 15 You have no direct evidence that Mr. Lonnie Thomas made a comment to you “We don’t want your kind here” because he didn’t like you because you’re a Native American; right? 16 17 18 Plaintiff stated he wrote down some information and provided it to Mr. Hilbish. 19 Defendants’ counsel identified this as the same person that directed Plaintiff to Ms. Lepine. 20 Additionally, Mr. Hilbish was identified not only in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures by name 21 with an accompanying Housing Discrimination information document but also in 22 Plaintiff’s production of documents on two “Safety Plan” documents as an alcoholics 23 anonymous sponsor3. Lastly, Mr. Hilbish was identified by Plaintiff in his response to 24 Defendants’ interrogatory number twenty-two as a person that has knowledge of Plaintiff’s 25 emotional distress, stress or anxiety. The Court finds the subject of Mr. Hilbish’s testimony was sufficiently disclosed in 26 27 28 3 The document says “aa sponsor” which the Court believes stands for alcoholics anonymous. 7 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 the discovery process. The testimony provided by Plaintiff was greater than a “passing 2 reference” in a deposition. Ollier, 768 F.3d at 863. The testimony was regarding a 3 purported incident that is at the heart of the matter – the discrimination of Plaintiff. Plaintiff 4 specifically identified Mr. Hilbish as someone with knowledge of an alleged incident of 5 discrimination in response to a question offered by Defendants’ counsel. Further, given 6 that Defendants’ chief argument in the case is that Plaintiff may have “imagined” the 7 alleged incidents because of “his ongoing mental illness,” it seems to the Court that 8 testimony highlighting a witness that could corroborate or contradict Plaintiff’s story to be 9 particularly important. Further, Defendants were provided with Mr. Hilbish’s name as a 10 person having knowledge of Plaintiff’s emotional distress, stress or anxiety in a written 11 interrogatory response. Perhaps most important, the testimony of Mr. Hilbish identified in 12 the PTO is in line with the information disclosed to Defendants. Thus, the scope of 13 testimony of Mr. Hilbish was disclosed to Defendants during the discovery process, and 14 Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Rule 26. 15 ii. Jackie McGee and Raymond Zeher 16 Ms. Jackie McGee and Mr. Raymond Zeher were identified in Plaintiff’s initial 17 disclosures by name, address, and telephone number. They were later identified as 18 individuals that had knowledge of emotional distress, stress, or anxiety that Plaintiff 19 suffered as a result of Defendants’ conduct in Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ 20 interrogatories. Ms. McGee’s and Mr. Zeher’s testimony is described as follows in the 21 PTO: “Plaintiff’s emotional distress.” 22 Plaintiff’s response to interrogatory twenty-two placed Defendants on notice as to 23 the scope of testimony that Ms. McGee and Mr. Zeher may provide, namely, the emotional 24 distress Plaintiff suffered as a result of Defendants’ actions. Importantly, the testimony of 25 Ms. McGee and Mr. Zeher identified in the PTO is in line with the information disclosed 26 to Defendants in Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ interrogatories. Thus, the scope of 27 testimony of Ms. McGee and Mr. Zeher was disclosed to Defendants during the discovery 28 process, and Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Rule 26. 8 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 iii. Nicole Anderson 2 Ms. Nicole Anderson was disclosed by name and title only in Plaintiff’s Initial 3 Disclosures. Ms. Anderson’s address and phone number were provided to Defendants in 4 Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories. Further, Ms. Anderson was identified 5 as an individual that had knowledge of emotional distress, stress, or anxiety that Plaintiff 6 suffered as a result of Defendants’ conduct in Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ 7 Interrogatories. Ms. Anderson’s testimony is described as follows in the PTO: “Program 8 director at Downtown IMPACT Program, Plaintiff’s emotional distress, program 9 requirements.” 10 Plaintiff provided several letters signed by Ms. Anderson as the program director for 11 Community Research Foundation. Many of the letters appear to be very general in nature, 12 with some clearly meant to be sent out to a broad audience. One letter was from Plaintiff 13 to Ms. Anderson in which Plaintiff requested the dates of his monthly visits to one of the 14 doctors in the Community Research Foundation. Ms. Anderson responded directly to 15 Plaintiff with the requested dates. 16 These documents are sufficient to place Defendants on notice that Ms. Anderson 17 may testify about Plaintiff’s emotional distress, but not the extent of her involvement with 18 the IMPACT Program. Similar to Ms. McGee, Ms. Anderson was disclosed near the 19 beginning of the litigation, placing Defendants on notice that she may testify at trial. The 20 scope of her testimony was at least partially identified when she was again disclosed as 21 being a person with knowledge of Plaintiff’s emotional distress. However, there is scant 22 information about Ms. Anderson’s role at IMPACT and how she may testify about this role 23 at trial. Providing the job title to a witness does not necessarily indicate the witness will 24 testify about their job. Thus, the testimony of Ms. Anderson was only partially disclosed.4 25 \\\ 26 27 28 The testimony of Nicole Anderson will not be limited, however, as Defendants’ motion is untimely, as stated above. Further, Defendants offered no explanation as to how they would be prejudiced by Ms. Anderson’s testimony about her role at IMPACT. 4 9 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 iv. Naomi Lake 2 Dr. Naomi Lake was identified by name and address in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures. 3 During Plaintiff’s deposition, he identified Dr. Lake as his psychotherapist that he sees at 4 the San Diego American Indian Health Clinic. Plaintiff stated he had seen Dr. Lake once a 5 month for two years. Plaintiff also provided a copy of Dr. Lake’s business card that 6 included her license number, address, telephone number, and email address in his response 7 to Defendants’ Request for Production. Further, Dr. Lake was identified as an individual 8 that had knowledge of emotional distress, stress, or anxiety that Plaintiff suffered as a result 9 of Defendants’ conduct in Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories. Dr. Lake’s 10 testimony is described as follows in the PTO: “Treats Plaintiff at the San Diego American 11 Indian Health Center.” 12 Plaintiff’s deposition testimony was sufficient to place Defendants on notice as to 13 what the scope of Dr. Lake’s testimony may be at trial. Similar to Mr. Hilbish, the 14 testimony provided by Plaintiff was more than a “passing reference” to a name at a 15 deposition. While Dr. Lake was not discussed at great length, Plaintiff did provide defense 16 counsel with Dr. Lake’s role in Plaintiff’s life. Defendants’ chief argument in this matter 17 is that Plaintiff has imagined these events due to his mental illness. Given this and the 18 testimony of Plaintiff at his deposition, Defendants were on notice that Dr. Lake may testify 19 about Plaintiff’s medical condition and treatment he received – all of which are relevant to 20 the case at hand. Further, Dr. Lake was identified as a person that had knowledge of 21 Plaintiff’s emotional distress, stress or anxiety in Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ 22 interrogatory twenty-two. Importantly, the testimony of Dr. Lake identified in the PTO is 23 in line with the information disclosed to Defendants. Thus, the scope of testimony of Dr. 24 Lake was disclosed to Defendants during the discovery process, and Plaintiff satisfied the 25 requirements of Rule 26. 26 v. Mukesh Sanghadia 27 Plaintiff identified Dr. Mukesh Sanghadia as a medication management psychiatrist 28 that he has seen once a month for approximately six months at the time of deposition. 10 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 Notably, Plaintiff testified that he reported to Dr. Sanghadia issues and problems in 2 Plaintiff’s life. Further, Dr. Sanghadia was identified as an individual that had knowledge 3 of emotional distress, stress, or anxiety that Plaintiff suffered as a result of Defendants’ 4 conduct in Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories. Dr. Sanghadia’s testimony 5 is described as follows in the PTO: “Healthcare provider with Community Research 6 Foundation/Downtown IMPACT who has treated Plaintiff for emotional distress.” 7 Plaintiff identified Dr. Sanghadia as a healthcare provider Plaintiff sees for injuries 8 that Defendants are allegedly responsible for causing. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony was 9 sufficient to place Defendants on notice as to what the scope of Dr. Sanghadia’s testimony 10 may be at trial. The discussion of Dr. Sanghadia was not simply a “passing reference.” 11 Ollier, 768 F.3d at 863. Similar to the testimony of Dr. Lake, the testimony regarding Dr. 12 Sanghadia was not extensive. However, Defendants were on notice that Dr. Sanghadia was 13 someone that Plaintiff confided in regarding problems and issues Plaintiff dealt with and 14 that Dr. Sanghadia prescribed medications to Plaintiff. Both of these issues are directly 15 related to Defendants’ chief argument in the matter. Further, Dr. Sanghadia was identified 16 as a person that had knowledge of Plaintiff’s emotional distress, stress or anxiety in 17 Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ interrogatory twenty-two. Thus, the scope of testimony 18 of Dr. Sanghadia was disclosed to Defendants during the discovery process, and Plaintiff 19 satisfied the requirements of Rule 26. 20 IV. DISTINGUISHING THE PREVIOUS COURT ORDER STRIKING 21 WITNESSES 22 Defendant has argued the Court’s ruling in this dispute should be consistent with the 23 ruling made on Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude, (ECF No. 67,) and consequently the Court 24 should also exclude Plaintiff’s witnesses who are alleged to be improperly disclosed. 25 Defendants’ argument is misplaced for several reasons. The disclosure of the Subject 26 Witnesses here is distinguishable from the complaint raised by Plaintiff which resulted in 27 the Court’s previous order striking several of Defendants’ witnesses. 28 First, the witnesses at issue in Plaintiff’s previous motion were not disclosed by 11 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 Defendants in any form during discovery whereas here the witnesses were identified by 2 name, address, and/or title. Plaintiff’s disclosures occurred very early in the litigation 3 whereas Defendants’ disclosure, such as it was, occurred several months after discovery 4 closed. 5 Second, the witnesses at issue in Plaintiff’s previous motion were mentioned only in 6 passing during depositions, with some being mentioned merely by first name. In addition 7 to this, Plaintiff denied all knowledge of many interactions with those witnesses. Here, the 8 witnesses at issue were known to Defendants, were identified either in Plaintiff’s initial 9 disclosure, discovery responses, and/or deposition, and were discussed in some depth in 10 areas specific to the witnesses’ anticipated testimony. 11 Lastly, Plaintiff provided the names of the disputed witnesses in response to 12 Defendants’ interrogatories as those that were aware of the alleged emotional distress, 13 stress or anxiety that Plaintiff suffered. In Plaintiff’s previous motion, Defendants’ 14 witnesses were never revealed in any written discovery responses by Defendants. V. DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 50 15 16 During the November 18, 2016 conference call, Plaintiff’s counsel raised a new 17 dispute regarding a document produced by Defendants and listed as Exhibit 50 in the Final 18 Pretrial Order. Defendants’ counsel acknowledged the document was produced late and 19 withdrew the document. However, later that same day, Defendants’ counsel filed a Notice 20 of Rescission and Revocation of Withdrawal indicating he withdrew the document in error. 21 (See ECF No. 73.) 22 The parties shall meet and confer regarding Exhibit 50. Should the parties be unable 23 to resolve their dispute, they shall promptly contact the Court. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 12 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG 1 VI. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ oral motion to exclude David Hilbish, 3 Jackie McGee, Nicole Anderson, Naomi Lake, Mukesh Sanghadia, and Raymond Zeher is 4 DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 29, 2016 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 14-CV-1489-AJB-WVG
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
