Sandoval Delgado v. Diaz Marquez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 WILFRIDO SANDOVAL DELGADO, Case No. 23-cv-05141-VKD 9 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 10 v. EX PARTE MOTION IN LIMINE WITHOUT PREJUDUCE 11 VERANIA DIAZ MARQUEZ, Re: Dkt. No. 22 Respondent. 12 13 14 On December 20, 2023, petitioner Wilfrido Sandoval Delgado filed an “Ex Parte Motion in 15 Limine” to exclude the testimony of an expert witness proffered by respondent Verania Diaz 16 Marquez. Dkt. No. 22. The Court denies the ex parte motion without prejudice. If Mr. Sandoval 17 objects to the proposed testimony of Ms. Diaz’s expert, he may raise those objections in 18 accordance with the abbreviated pretrial preparation procedures outlined in the Court’s case 19 management order. See Dkt. No. 20-1 at 4-5 (objections to witnesses). 20 If the parties feel that they are unable to obtain necessary discovery prior to the December 21 29, 2023 deadline, the Court encourages them to discuss whether a modification to the schedule 22 should be made and to promptly advise the Court of their proposals. However, the Court reminds 23 the parties that they should only seek discovery that is truly necessary to the presentation of their 24 respective positions, given that the Hague Convention requires that these proceedings be 25 conducted in an “expeditious” manner. See Norinder v. Fuentes, 657 F.3d 526, 533 (7th Cir. 26 2011) (“[T]he adjudication of a petition for return of a child is much like a district court's exercise 27 of equitable power in the context of a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. In 1 the relevant facts, and a decision must be rendered on an expedited basis.”).! 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: December 20, 2023 4 Vuisiuin®, QLeMarch VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 15 16 it 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' For example, if Ms. Diaz’s proposed expert will not rely on any examination or interview of 2g || tespondent or her minor child, the Court questions whether Mr. Sandoval’s rebuttal expert requires any such examination or interview. See Dkt. No. 22 at 5 n.1.