Aliff v. Vervent, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Turrey v. Vervent, Inc. (2026-08-12) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony, arguing it was filed outside the deadline. The Court denied the motion to strike, exercising its discretion to allow the late filing in the interest of an orderly process, and set a deadline for Defendants' opposition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendants' Expert David Harmon is denied.“Therefore, the Court exercises such discretion and HEREBY ORDERS that Defendants file any opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendants’ Expert David Harmon by May 26, 2023.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that it has broad discretion to manage the docket and allow late filings when necessary for an orderly process. The order notes that both parties have filed late, and the court has previously allowed such filings. Denying the motion to strike is a procedural ruling consistent with the court's inherent authority to control its docket and the specific circumstances of the case where the late filing was part of a consolidated hearing strategy previously approved by the court. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short procedural ruling. It correctly cites the standard for judicial discretion in managing the docket. It relies on the specific facts that the court had previously granted permission for a consolidated motion and that both parties had a history of late filings which the court had tolerated. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | HEATHER TURREY, OLIVER Case No. 3:20-CV-00697-DMS (AHG) FIETY, JORDAN HERNANDEZ, and 12 || JEFFREY SAZON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly ORDER DENYING VERVENT 13 || situated, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 14 Plaintiffs, TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT DAVID 15 |] v. HARMON 16 || VERVENT, INC. fka FIRST ASSOCIATES LOAN SERVICING, 17 || LLC; ACTIVATE FINANCIAL, LLC; DAVID JOHNSON; and LAWRENCE 18 || CHIAVARO, 19 Defendants. 20 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion 71 to Exclude Testimony of Defendants’ Expert David Harmon (ECF No. 195). (ECF 22 No. 211.) The parties appeared before the Court on April 28, 2023 for the Final 23 Pretrial Conference. (ECF No. 182.) At the April 28 hearing, the Court stated any 24 Daubert motions would be consolidated with the Motions in Limine hearing in this 25 matter on June 2, 2023. Defendants correctly note that, at the hearing, Defendants 26 requested to file a consolidated Daubert motion and not have it count as a Motion in 27 Limine. The Court granted this request. Defendants filed its Daubert motion on May 28 Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS (AHG) -l- 1 |} 5, 2023. (ECF No. 191.) Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Exclude Testimony of 2 || Defendants’ Expert David Harmon on May 19, 2023. (ECF No. 195.) 3 To date, both parties have filed motions, or disclosed evidence, outside of the 4 || requisite deadlines. The Court has allowed such motions and evidence in the interest 5 || of an orderly process. The Court has discretion to do so. Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. 6 || Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the Court exercises 7 || such discretion and HEREBY ORDERS that Defendants file any opposition to 8 || Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendants’ Expert David Harmon by 9 || May 26, 2023. The hearing for this matter is on June 2, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. \ J Dated: May 23, 2023 By: jn Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 12 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS (AHG) -2-