New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Summary Judgment — Declarations from Witnesses Not Disclosed Per Rule 26(a)(1) Excluded Pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1)

Download PDF

From Marin v. Evans, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61922 (E.D. Wash. July 23, 2008) (a class action):

In response to the Court's invitation to file a sur-reply to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs filed Declarations from both name-Plaintiffs, as well as Declarations from individuals who were not previously disclosed to Defendants. Defendants moved the Court to strike the Declarations due to the untimely disclosure. Defendants also asserted that the Declarations should be stricken because they contradicted earlier deposition testimony, contained inadmissible hearsay, and lack of foundation. Defendants also argue that Joyce Usher's Declaration is irrelevant. *** Plaintiffs are not disputing that they had not previously disclosed Javier Borges, Cirilo Marin, or Joyce Usher as individuals with discoverable information and with whom Plaintiffs would be relying upon to prove their case. Plaintiffs maintain, however, that they did not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 because they disclosed these witnesses within days of determining that they would use their testimony. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs' interpretation of what is required under the Rules of Civil Procedure....

At the hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel indicated to the Court that Plaintiffs had evidence that would demonstrate that co-conspirators or co-Defendants had actual knowledge that an individual was unauthorized and had entered the country illegally. At the time of the hearing then, Plaintiffs' counsel knew that these individuals had discoverable information. Presumably, Plaintiffs counsel had contacted these individuals at some point prior to this hearing, yet never disclosed these individuals to Plaintiff. Since Plaintiffs are relying on these persons to prove the elements of their claims, it is inconceivable that these individuals would not need to be disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. It is not unfair or unreasonable to expect Plaintiffs to prepare to prove the essential elements of the claim at trial, and to identify the witnesses they needed for that purpose on a timely basis, regardless of whether Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the proof of the elements in motions for summary judgment. See Wong v. Regents of the Univ. Of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2005).

Alternatively, if it is true, as Plaintiffs explained in their briefing, that Plaintiffs did not identify that these individuals had discoverable information until after the February 26, 2008, hearing, then Plaintiffs were not being forthright with the Court. It is significant to note that Plaintiffs did not ask for more time to discover evidence to oppose Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Rather, the Plaintiffs represented that they had already developed such information but did not file it because they did not think it necessary.

Held, “the Court will not consider the Declarations of Javier Borges, Cirilio Marin and Joyce Usher in opposition to Defendant William Evans' Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice