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

Rule 26(a)(1) Damages Disclosure — “Substantial Justification” and Harmless Error — No Requirement That Expert Perform Complicated Initial Disclosures

Download PDF

U.S. Bank N.A. v. PHL Variable Life Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143398 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013):

"Substantial justification may be demonstrated where there is justification to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person that parties could differ as to whether the party was required to comply with the disclosure request, or if there exists a genuine dispute concerning compliance." Ritchie Risk-Related Trading, 280 F.R.D. at 159 (internal quotation marks omitted). A violation is harmless if it does not prejudice the opposing party. Id. In evaluating whether a failure to disclose should be excused, courts look to factors such as (1) whether the failure has an explanation or was willful or in bad faith; (2) the surprise or prejudice to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (3) the ability to cure the surprise; (4) the importance of the evidence; and (5) the extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial. See, e.g., Rodrick v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 666 F.3d 1093, 1096-97 (8th Cir. 2012); MicroStrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005); David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003); Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co., 170 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1999);  [*10] Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc., 118 F.3d 955, 961 (2d Cir. 1997); Accenture Global Services GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 577, 587 n.16 (D. Del. 2010); Ebbert v. Nassau County, No. 05 CV 5445, 2008 WL 4443238, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008).***

Moreover, Rule 26(a)(1) does not mandate that the initial damages computation, even if complicated, be performed by an expert.   Indeed, this points to a foundational flaw in PHL's motion. The defendant seems to assume that the damages computation required  in initial disclosures would be akin to a fully-reasoned expert report. That is not required; rather Rule 26(a)(1) contemplates an estimate of damages and "some analysis," e.g., Maharaj v. California Bank & Trust, 288 F.R.D. 458, 463 (E.D. Cal. 2013), and Rule 26(e) requires supplementation as additional or corrective information becomes available. Expert disclosures, on the other hand, are governed by Rule 26(a)(2), which provides that such information be provided "in the sequence that the court orders."4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D). That is, neither Rule 26(a)(1) nor Rule 26(e) requires disclosure of an expert report prior to the date ordered by the court for such disclosure. See Hesco Parts, 2007 WL 2407255, at *2.

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

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