ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING BY 14 DAYS SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT'S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF ADRIANA CARMONA'S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS

[ECF Nos. 26 & 28]

BARBARA L. MAJOR, Magistrate Judge.

On March 2, 2015, Defendant San Diego Community College District ("SDCCD") filed an "EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING BY 14 DAYS SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT'S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS." ECF No. 26. Defendant SDCCD seeks a two week continuance of the March 4, 2016 deadline for serving its expert reports. Id. at 1. In support, Defendant SDCCD states that it came into the case late and only recently filed its answer to Plaintiff's complaint. Id. In further support, Defendant SDCCD states that discovery does not close until May 6, 2016 and that due to a trial that lasted five weeks and just concluded on March 1, 2016, its lead counsel was unable to ensure that the expert reports were properly prepared. Id. at 2. Defendant SDCCD argues that the other parties will not be prejudiced if the request is granted and that if it is denied, it will suffer "irreparable harm" as it will be unable to present expert opinions at trial. Id. Defendant SDCCD notes that Defendants Augustin Loeza and the United States of America ("USA") have stipulated to the requested extension. Id.; see also ECF No 26-1, Declaration of Ljubisa Kostic at 2; and ECF No. 26-2, Stipulation to Extend Defendant San Diego Community College District's Time to Provide Expert Reports. Finally, Defendant SDCCD states that it made several attempts to contact Plaintiff's counsel (Messrs. Leonard Burgess and Douglas Gilliland) via email and telephone without success. ECF No. 26 at 2; see also ECF No 26-1, Declaration of Ljubisa Kostic at 2-3.

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed an "EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF ADRIANA CARMONA'S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS." ECF No. 28. Plaintiff also seeks to extend the date by which she is required to serve her expert reports by two weeks to March 18, 2016. Id. In support, Plaintiff states that her lead counsel who was in charge of coordinating all expert issues, Mr. Burgess, was hospitalized last week and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit where he remains today. Id.; see also ECF No. 28-1, Declaration of Douglas S. Gillian.

On March 4, 2016, Defendant USA filed an "OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO PROVIDE EXPERT REPORTS." ECF No. 29. Defendant USA opposes Plaintiff's request to continue the expert report deadline. Id. at 1. In support, Defendant USA states that despite being ordered to designate experts by January 22, 2016, Plaintiff has failed to designate any experts at all. Id. at 2. Accordingly, Defendant USA did not have any notice of Plaintiff's experts and was unable "to identify and retain the requisite rebuttal experts." Id. Because of the lack of designation, Defendant USA opposes Plaintiff's request to extend the date to disclose expert reports. Id.

Good cause appearing, Defendant SDCCD's ex parte motion [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED as follows: By March 18, 2016, Defendant SDCCD shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All other dates and deadlines remain as previously set. ECF No. 12.

Plaintiff's ex parte motion [ECF No. 28] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Given Defendant USA's allegations, an ex parte motion on this issue is inappropriate. Plaintiff may contact the Court for a hearing date and file a properly noticed motion for the Court's consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.