On December 03, 2013 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Karidis-Koepke, Nancy,
Koepke, Harold,
and
A.B.C. Mobile Systems,
A.B.C. Mobile Systems, Individually And As,
American Honda Motor Co. Inc.,
Bell Industries, Inc.,
Bell Industries Inc., Individually And As,
Belnortel Corporation, D.B.A. A.B.C. Mobile Brake,
Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc.,
Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Individually And As,
Burlingame Auto Supply,
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.,
Cooper Industries Llc,
Cooper Industries, Llc, Individually And As,
Don L. Morris, Inc.,
First Doe Through Four Hundredth Doe, Inclusive,
Fmc Corporation-John Bean Automotive Equipment,
Fmc Technologies, Inc., Individually And As,
Folsom Auto Supply,
Ford Motor Company,
Foreland Parts, Inc.,,
Genuine Parts Company,
H.M. Royal, Inc.,
Honeywell International, Inc., Fka Allied Signal,,
Kelsey-Hayes Company,
Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.,,
Les Vogel Chevrolet Company,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Morton International, Inc., A Rohm And Haas,
Morton International, Llc, Formerly Known As,
National Automotive Parts Association,
Parker Hannifin Corporation,
Parker Hannifin Corporation, Individually And As,
Pneumo Abex Llc, Individually And As Successor In,
Rox Automotive,
Shell Oil Company,
Specialty Foreign Auto Parts, Inc., Erroneously,
The Budd Company,
Thyssenkrupp Budd Company Sued As "The Budd,
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
University Distributors, Inc., Erroneously Sued,
Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,
W. Berry Hurley Corporation, D.B.A. Federal Auto,
Karidis-Koepke, Nancy,
Koepke, Harold,
The Hertz Corporation,
for civil
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
Garrett Sanderson III, Bar No. 131026
gsanderson@cbmlaw.com
Peter H. Cruz, Bar No, 220850 ELECTRONICALLY
peruz@cbmlaw.com FILED
CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP Superior Court of California,
Attorneys at Law County of San Francisco
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94104
MAY 01 2014
Clerk of the Court
Telephone: 415.989.5900 BY: RAYMOND K. WONG
Facsimile: 415.989.0932 Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
il HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- Case No. CGC-13-276217
KOEPKE,
12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
13 HEAR MOTION To REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO
Vv. Repuce THER EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED
i4 TIME
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
15 DaTE May
1, 2014
Defendants. TIME: 11:00 a.m.
16 DEPT. 503
17 Action Filed: December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 16, 2014
18
19 1
20 SUMMARY OF ORDER REQUESTED
21 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”) requests an order to hear its motion on
22 shortened time to require plaintiffs to reduce their list of expert witnesses pursuant to Code of
23 Civil Procedure section 2034.250(b)(6). Plaintiffs have listed sixteen (16) retained experts and
24 fifteen (15) non-retained medical experts. Of the sixteen retained experts, two are deceased and
25 the descriptions of several clearly show their opinions will address identical subjects, e.g.,
26 epidemiology.
27 Good cause exists to hear the motion on shortened time, because only twenty-five business
28 days remain before the cut-off of expert discovery and deposing sixteen retained experts alone
CARROLL, BURDICK & CBM-PRODUCTS\SF625230-1
McDonougd LLP
Arreanevs ar Law MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO EX PARTE APP. 10 HEAR MOTION
SAN FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME,
would create an unwarranted annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense. This is
shown not only by the short period of time available to depose them but also by the vague
descriptions of their anticipated testimony (which violates Bonds v. Roy, 20 Cal. 4th 140, 146-147
(1999)) as weil as their respective hourly rates and geographic locations across the country. This
is a trial preference case, so it is doubtful the Court would be inclined to address this situation by
postponing the trial date, although that is one practical way of addressing these issues.
Notice of this ex parte application was provided to plaintiffs and all other parties on
Tuesday, April 29, 2014, (Ex. A to Sanderson Decl.) VWGoA anticipates that plaintiffs will
oppose this application. During a telephone meet and confer on April 30, VWGoA proposed a
10 phone conference with plaintiffs’ counsel on May 2 to identify the specific expert witnesses each
lt party would call at trial, and the areas they would address in their testimony, in order to streamline
12 the deposition process. Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to participate in such a telephone conference.
13 (Sanderson Decl. §5.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also refused to withdraw their disclosure of two
14 deceased experts notwithstanding that disclosure of a deceased person clearly violates Code of
15 Civil Procedure sections 2034.210(a), 2034.260(c)(3) and (4), and 2034.410. Thus, a motion
16 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.250(b)(6) is clearly the only way to restore
17 efficiency to what has become a game of designating a hoard of experts in asbestos cases, most of
18 whom will not be called to testify at trial.
19 iW
20 FACTS SHOWING GOOD CAUSE TO GRANT THIS APPLICATION
21 The parties disclosed expert witnesses on April 28, 2014. Trial is set for June 16, 2014, as
22 a result of plaintiffs’ trial preference motion. Plaintiffs have disclosed sixteen retained experts,
23 including two they affirmatively concede are deceased. (Ex. F at 1:23-2:25 to Sanderson
24 Decl.) On April 29, VWGoA gave notice of this ex parte application and requested that plaintiffs
25 agree to reduce their list of expert witnesses. (Ex. A to Sanderson Decl.) There are but about
26 twenty-five business days remaining before the expert discovery cut-off date. It is not humanly
27 possible to depose all sixteen of plaintiffs’ retained experts and the hourly rates charged by most
28 of plaintiffs’ designated experts range from $400 to $800 per hour. At five hours of deposition
CARROLL, BURDICK &
‘McDoNouct LLP
CBM-PRODUCTSISF625230-1 -2.
‘Avtonnees at Law MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO Ex PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION
SAN FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME
time for each one, it would cost VWGoA not less than $37,375 to depose thirteen of
them. (Sanderson Decl. {7.) Factoring in air fare, hotels, meals and rental cars, deposing each of
plaintiffs’ fourteen living designated experts would cost VWGoA a substantial additional amount.
Notably, two of plaintiffs designated experts are deceased. (Ex. F at 2:7 and 2:11-16 to
Sanderson Decl.) This violates Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.260(c)(3) and
(4)(disclosing party must affirmatively represent disclosed expert has agreed to testify at trial and
will give a “meaningful oral deposition” in the case) and 2034.410 (right to depose a designated
expert). An expert who cannot be deposed, and a deceased person clearly cannot be, may not be
disclosed as an expert. Nor can a deceased person be retained in a case or agree to testify at trial.
10 Evid. Code §§452(g) and 453. During telephone meet and confer on April 30, plaintiffs refused to
1 withdraw those two designated deceased persons as experts. (Sanderson Decl. §6.) Moreover, a
12 deceased person cannot possibly qualify as a retained expert pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
13 section 2034.210(a)(“a list containing the name and address of any natural person ... whose oral
14 or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at
15 trial” [emphasis added]).
16 During meet and confer on April 30, that lasted about 23 minutes, VWGoA’s counsel
17 also proposed that plaintiffs’ office and his have a telephone conference on May 2 during
18 which each party would identify the specific experts to be called at trial and the specific
19 areas each will address (e.g., epidemiology) in order to reduce the shell game of noticing an
20 expert’s deposition, making flight arrangements, and then being told that expert will not be
21 offered for deposition. (Sanderson Decl. 45.) Plaintiffs’ counsel refused. (/d.)
22 In addition, at one point during the meet and confer on April 30, plaintiffs’ counsel
23 identified Dr. Allan Smith as their only pure epidemiologist. (Sanderson Decl. 95.) Asked to
24 confirm that Dr. Smith will provide their testimony on epidemiology, plaintiffs’ counsel
25 refused. (/d.) Based on Mr. Harris’ response, it clearly appears that Dr. Smith was not properly
26 disclosed as an expert in this case and should be stricken. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s refusal to confirm
27 that Dr. Smith will testify provides further good cause for hearing VWGoA’s motion on shortened
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
McDonoucr LLP
CBM-PRODUCTS\SF625230-1 3-
Arvonweys aTEase MEMO. OF Points & AUTHORITIES ISO EX PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION
SAN FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME
time to require plaintiffs to reduce their expert list, so that VWGoA can proceed to depose only
those persons plaintiffs actually will call to testify at trial.
Here, plaintiffs have disclosed no fewer than six experts who “may” testify about
epidemiology. (Ex. F at 4:22-23 [Brody], 6:20-21 [Egilman], 9:15-17 [Frank], 10:8-9 [Horn],
12:19-20 [Mark] and 13:25-26 [Smith] to Sanderson Decl.} And plaintiffs have refused the
request by VWGoA to confer on May 2 concerning specific experts who will be called at trial and
the specific topics each will address, wrongfully claiming it constitutes work product. (Sanderson
Decl. 5.)
iil.
10 A HEARING ON SHORTENED TIME IS JUSTIFIED
Plaintiffs already have the benefit of a preferential trial date. Defendants, including
12 VWGoA, should have the benefit of knowing precisely whom plaintiffs intend to call as experts at
13 trial, and the specific areas each will cover, in order to meaningfully complete their depositions
14 well before the June 6 expert cut-off and not have all of the key depositions compressed during the
15 final week. Bonds v. Roy, supra, 20 Cal. 4th at 146-147, However, unless parties are required to
16 list only those experts they intend to call at trial, and with minimal overlap, that will certainly be
17 the outcome.
18 Rule 3.1300(b), California Rules of Court, authorizes this court to prescribe a shorter time
19 for hearing a motion than that provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). Pursuant to
20 section 1005(b), VWGoA’s substantive motion could not be heard prior to May 23. By then, there
21 will be only one full week and the Memorial Day weekend partial week to complete expert
22 depositions. Under these circumstances, VWGoA’s application should be granted.
23 VWGOoA remains willing to participate in a conference with plaintiffs, as well as al?
24 defendants, for the purpose of specifying the experts who will be called to testify at trial and the
25 specific subject each will address, so that depositions can be scheduled and completed
26 efficiently. Plaintiffs have thus far refused to agree to VWGoA’s proposal. (Sanderson Decl.
27 45.) Efficiency is what the Discovery Act is intended to promote, but provisions of the Discovery
28 Act are misused to defeat efficiency. Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure flaunts the provisions and intent
CARROLL, BURDICK &
McDonouGH LLP
CBM-PRODUCTS\SPS25230-1 4.
Arrorisys ar haw MEMO. OF POINTS S AUTHORITIES ISO Ex PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION
SAN FRANCISCO. TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME
of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010 et seq., as well as the Supreme Court’s mandates in
Bonds v. Roy, supra, 20 Cal. 4" at 146-147 (“The opportunity to depose an expert during trial,
particularly if the testimony relates to a central issue, often provides a wholly inadequate
opportunity to understand the expert’s opinion and to prepare to meet it’”). This clear prejudice is
not lost on the Supreme Court, which is why this Court should affirmatively step in now.
VWGoA requests that its substantive motion be heard the week of May 12, 2014, or sooner.
Dated: May |, 2014 CARROLL, BURDICK & MeDONOUGH LLP
-
a.
ae
oe
10 By
Garrett Sanderson I
il Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
McDonoucH LLP
CBM-PRODUCTS\SF625230-1 5.
Arrorneysar Law Memo. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO Ex PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION
SAW FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFES TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME
Preview
Garrett Sanderson III, Bar No. 131026 gsanderson@cbmlaw.com Peter H. Cruz, Bar No, 220850 ELECTRONICALLY peruz@cbmlaw.com FILED CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP Superior Court of California, Attorneys at Law County of San Francisco 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94104 MAY 01 2014 Clerk of the Court Telephone: 415.989.5900 BY: RAYMOND K. WONG Facsimile: 415.989.0932 Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 il HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- Case No. CGC-13-276217 KOEPKE, 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 13 HEAR MOTION To REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO Vv. Repuce THER EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED i4 TIME FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., 15 DaTE May 1, 2014 Defendants. TIME: 11:00 a.m. 16 DEPT. 503 17 Action Filed: December 3, 2013 Trial Date: June 16, 2014 18 19 1 20 SUMMARY OF ORDER REQUESTED 21 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”) requests an order to hear its motion on 22 shortened time to require plaintiffs to reduce their list of expert witnesses pursuant to Code of 23 Civil Procedure section 2034.250(b)(6). Plaintiffs have listed sixteen (16) retained experts and 24 fifteen (15) non-retained medical experts. Of the sixteen retained experts, two are deceased and 25 the descriptions of several clearly show their opinions will address identical subjects, e.g., 26 epidemiology. 27 Good cause exists to hear the motion on shortened time, because only twenty-five business 28 days remain before the cut-off of expert discovery and deposing sixteen retained experts alone CARROLL, BURDICK & CBM-PRODUCTS\SF625230-1 McDonougd LLP Arreanevs ar Law MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO EX PARTE APP. 10 HEAR MOTION SAN FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME, would create an unwarranted annoyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense. This is shown not only by the short period of time available to depose them but also by the vague descriptions of their anticipated testimony (which violates Bonds v. Roy, 20 Cal. 4th 140, 146-147 (1999)) as weil as their respective hourly rates and geographic locations across the country. This is a trial preference case, so it is doubtful the Court would be inclined to address this situation by postponing the trial date, although that is one practical way of addressing these issues. Notice of this ex parte application was provided to plaintiffs and all other parties on Tuesday, April 29, 2014, (Ex. A to Sanderson Decl.) VWGoA anticipates that plaintiffs will oppose this application. During a telephone meet and confer on April 30, VWGoA proposed a 10 phone conference with plaintiffs’ counsel on May 2 to identify the specific expert witnesses each lt party would call at trial, and the areas they would address in their testimony, in order to streamline 12 the deposition process. Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to participate in such a telephone conference. 13 (Sanderson Decl. §5.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also refused to withdraw their disclosure of two 14 deceased experts notwithstanding that disclosure of a deceased person clearly violates Code of 15 Civil Procedure sections 2034.210(a), 2034.260(c)(3) and (4), and 2034.410. Thus, a motion 16 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.250(b)(6) is clearly the only way to restore 17 efficiency to what has become a game of designating a hoard of experts in asbestos cases, most of 18 whom will not be called to testify at trial. 19 iW 20 FACTS SHOWING GOOD CAUSE TO GRANT THIS APPLICATION 21 The parties disclosed expert witnesses on April 28, 2014. Trial is set for June 16, 2014, as 22 a result of plaintiffs’ trial preference motion. Plaintiffs have disclosed sixteen retained experts, 23 including two they affirmatively concede are deceased. (Ex. F at 1:23-2:25 to Sanderson 24 Decl.) On April 29, VWGoA gave notice of this ex parte application and requested that plaintiffs 25 agree to reduce their list of expert witnesses. (Ex. A to Sanderson Decl.) There are but about 26 twenty-five business days remaining before the expert discovery cut-off date. It is not humanly 27 possible to depose all sixteen of plaintiffs’ retained experts and the hourly rates charged by most 28 of plaintiffs’ designated experts range from $400 to $800 per hour. At five hours of deposition CARROLL, BURDICK & ‘McDoNouct LLP CBM-PRODUCTSISF625230-1 -2. ‘Avtonnees at Law MEMO. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO Ex PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION SAN FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME time for each one, it would cost VWGoA not less than $37,375 to depose thirteen of them. (Sanderson Decl. {7.) Factoring in air fare, hotels, meals and rental cars, deposing each of plaintiffs’ fourteen living designated experts would cost VWGoA a substantial additional amount. Notably, two of plaintiffs designated experts are deceased. (Ex. F at 2:7 and 2:11-16 to Sanderson Decl.) This violates Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.260(c)(3) and (4)(disclosing party must affirmatively represent disclosed expert has agreed to testify at trial and will give a “meaningful oral deposition” in the case) and 2034.410 (right to depose a designated expert). An expert who cannot be deposed, and a deceased person clearly cannot be, may not be disclosed as an expert. Nor can a deceased person be retained in a case or agree to testify at trial. 10 Evid. Code §§452(g) and 453. During telephone meet and confer on April 30, plaintiffs refused to 1 withdraw those two designated deceased persons as experts. (Sanderson Decl. §6.) Moreover, a 12 deceased person cannot possibly qualify as a retained expert pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 13 section 2034.210(a)(“a list containing the name and address of any natural person ... whose oral 14 or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at 15 trial” [emphasis added]). 16 During meet and confer on April 30, that lasted about 23 minutes, VWGoA’s counsel 17 also proposed that plaintiffs’ office and his have a telephone conference on May 2 during 18 which each party would identify the specific experts to be called at trial and the specific 19 areas each will address (e.g., epidemiology) in order to reduce the shell game of noticing an 20 expert’s deposition, making flight arrangements, and then being told that expert will not be 21 offered for deposition. (Sanderson Decl. 45.) Plaintiffs’ counsel refused. (/d.) 22 In addition, at one point during the meet and confer on April 30, plaintiffs’ counsel 23 identified Dr. Allan Smith as their only pure epidemiologist. (Sanderson Decl. 95.) Asked to 24 confirm that Dr. Smith will provide their testimony on epidemiology, plaintiffs’ counsel 25 refused. (/d.) Based on Mr. Harris’ response, it clearly appears that Dr. Smith was not properly 26 disclosed as an expert in this case and should be stricken. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s refusal to confirm 27 that Dr. Smith will testify provides further good cause for hearing VWGoA’s motion on shortened 28 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDonoucr LLP CBM-PRODUCTS\SF625230-1 3- Arvonweys aTEase MEMO. OF Points & AUTHORITIES ISO EX PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION SAN FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME time to require plaintiffs to reduce their expert list, so that VWGoA can proceed to depose only those persons plaintiffs actually will call to testify at trial. Here, plaintiffs have disclosed no fewer than six experts who “may” testify about epidemiology. (Ex. F at 4:22-23 [Brody], 6:20-21 [Egilman], 9:15-17 [Frank], 10:8-9 [Horn], 12:19-20 [Mark] and 13:25-26 [Smith] to Sanderson Decl.} And plaintiffs have refused the request by VWGoA to confer on May 2 concerning specific experts who will be called at trial and the specific topics each will address, wrongfully claiming it constitutes work product. (Sanderson Decl. 5.) iil. 10 A HEARING ON SHORTENED TIME IS JUSTIFIED Plaintiffs already have the benefit of a preferential trial date. Defendants, including 12 VWGoA, should have the benefit of knowing precisely whom plaintiffs intend to call as experts at 13 trial, and the specific areas each will cover, in order to meaningfully complete their depositions 14 well before the June 6 expert cut-off and not have all of the key depositions compressed during the 15 final week. Bonds v. Roy, supra, 20 Cal. 4th at 146-147, However, unless parties are required to 16 list only those experts they intend to call at trial, and with minimal overlap, that will certainly be 17 the outcome. 18 Rule 3.1300(b), California Rules of Court, authorizes this court to prescribe a shorter time 19 for hearing a motion than that provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). Pursuant to 20 section 1005(b), VWGoA’s substantive motion could not be heard prior to May 23. By then, there 21 will be only one full week and the Memorial Day weekend partial week to complete expert 22 depositions. Under these circumstances, VWGoA’s application should be granted. 23 VWGOoA remains willing to participate in a conference with plaintiffs, as well as al? 24 defendants, for the purpose of specifying the experts who will be called to testify at trial and the 25 specific subject each will address, so that depositions can be scheduled and completed 26 efficiently. Plaintiffs have thus far refused to agree to VWGoA’s proposal. (Sanderson Decl. 27 45.) Efficiency is what the Discovery Act is intended to promote, but provisions of the Discovery 28 Act are misused to defeat efficiency. Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure flaunts the provisions and intent CARROLL, BURDICK & McDonouGH LLP CBM-PRODUCTS\SPS25230-1 4. Arrorisys ar haw MEMO. OF POINTS S AUTHORITIES ISO Ex PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION SAN FRANCISCO. TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010 et seq., as well as the Supreme Court’s mandates in Bonds v. Roy, supra, 20 Cal. 4" at 146-147 (“The opportunity to depose an expert during trial, particularly if the testimony relates to a central issue, often provides a wholly inadequate opportunity to understand the expert’s opinion and to prepare to meet it’”). This clear prejudice is not lost on the Supreme Court, which is why this Court should affirmatively step in now. VWGoA requests that its substantive motion be heard the week of May 12, 2014, or sooner. Dated: May |, 2014 CARROLL, BURDICK & MeDONOUGH LLP - a. ae oe 10 By Garrett Sanderson I il Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDonoucH LLP CBM-PRODUCTS\SF625230-1 5. Arrorneysar Law Memo. OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO Ex PARTE APP. TO HEAR MOTION SAW FRANCISCO TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFES TO REDUCE THEIR EXPERT LIST ON SHORTENED TIME