ORDER

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to preclude certain of the government's expert witnesses. (Dkt. No. 235). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a death penalty case. Defendant Samuel Stone is accused of killing Mr. Michael Anita while incarcerated at USP Atwater. The current motion is one of the many long-running discovery disputes between the parties. The Court's original scheduling order specified that the government's non-mental health expert disclosures were due June 3, 2013. (Dkt. No. 56 at 3.) The government's disclosure of any report or results of scientific tests, physical examination, and mental examination were also due June 3, 2013. (Dkt. No. 56 at 2.) Defendant also made requests for mental health disclosures in 2012. However, the government apparently did not turn over all required documents by June 3, 2013. Instead, on December 20, 2013, the government filed a very late motion for an extension of time to disclose the expert testimony. (Dkt. No. 167.) Beyond its untimeliness, the motion was faulty in that it did not specifically set forth the basis for the extension, as required by the local rules. Because Defendant stated that they would not be prejudiced, the Court granted the request for an extension of time, but warned the government that future motions for such an extension must comply with E.D. Cal. Local. Cr. R. 430.1. (Dkt. No. 185 at 1-2.) On this basis, it seems clear that the government did not fully comply with the Court's original scheduling order, even if it did disclose some—though not all—of the relevant documents by the deadline.

Defendant filed this motion on March 3, 2014, seeking to exclude the opinions of the medical examiner, the crime scene expert, the latent fingerprint examiner, and the handwriting evidence. (Dkt. No. 235.) The government responded, (Dkt. No. 246), and Defendant replied. (Dkt. No. 259.) On April 14, 2014, after a motion by Defendant, the Court continued the trial from September 15, 2014 to October 5, 2015. (Dkt. No. 273.)

If, indeed, Defendant has been prejudiced by the late disclosures, it may be appropriate to exclude the evidence under some circumstances, depending on the degree of prejudice to Defendant and the government's culpability. However, the Court is unwilling to determine the appropriate scope of expert testimony this far in advance of trial. Second, since the time Defendant filed this motion, the Court has continued the trial. Defendant, therefore, will have additional time to prepare for trial, any prejudice he has or will suffer has been greatly reduced.

Thus, the Court does not find that the appropriate remedy at this time would be to exclude the government's expert testimony for failure to comply with the Court's orders. To the extent the government has not already fully complied and turned over the relevant materials, it is ordered to do so by June 20, 2014.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to exclude the government's expert testimony, (Dkt. No. 235), is DENIED.