Yu v. ByteDance Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 YINTAO YU, Case No. 23-cv-04910-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S DISCLOSURE OF REBUTTAL 9 v. EXPERT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 10 BYTEDANCE INC., et al., DEFAULT 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 133, 144, 145

12 The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions regarding plaintiff’s designation of a 13 rebuttal expert witness. After consideration of the parties’ arguments, including the fact that counsel 14 disagree about whether the stipulated pretrial schedule that the Court adopted was intended to 15 preclude the designation of rebuttal experts, the Court concludes that plaintiff should be permitted 16 to disclose his rebuttal witness. Because there was no agreement regarding what the parties intended 17 by including a single expert disclosure deadline, the Court concludes that Rule 26(a)(2)(D)’s 30- 18 day rule regarding disclosure of rebuttal experts applies. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26 advisory 19 committee’s notes to 1993 amendment; Newfield Prod. Co. v. Eighty-Eight Oil LLC, No. 1:16-CV- 20 00273, 2018 WL 4347599, at *1 (D.N.D. July 24, 2018) (“Most federal courts addressing the issue 21 have concluded that, when a scheduling order is silent on the issue of designation of a rebuttal expert, 22 the rebuttal expert is allowed based on Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure.”).1 24 The Court also finds that defendants will not be prejudiced by the disclosure because the 25 Court REOPENS expert discovery until October 1, 2024, for the limited purpose of allowing 26

27 1 It is the Court’s view, however, that plaintiff’s counsel should have filed a response to 1 defendant to conduct discovery regarding Mr. Ryan and his opinions. The parties shall cooperate 2 || regarding this discovery, and if any issues arise, the parties are directed to file a joint statement as 3 directed in the Court’s standing order or to file a motion if appropriate. The Court instructs the 4 || parties not to email the Court’s Clerk with substantive arguments, and the Court will not entertain 5 any further _litigation-by-email. Counsel shall only contact _the Court’s Clerk regarding 6 || administrative matters, such as the scheduling of a hearing. To the extent that defendants contend 7 || that Mr. Ryan’s expert report is not truly a rebuttal report, defendants may raise that issue in a 8 || motion. 9 Finally, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion for default. Although untimely, plaintiff did 10 || file an answer to defendants’ counterclaims. This case has been actively litigated from its inception, 11 and “[c]ases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel vy. McCool, 12 || 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: September 17, 2024 USAN ILLSTON 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28