Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Neither Fault Nor Willfulness Required — Opportunity to Submit Briefs = Opportunity to Be Heard, Satisfies Due Process

Remington v. Mathson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9849 (9th Cir. May 28, 2014):

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions on Remington because Remington's failure to comply with expert witness disclosures was neither substantially justified nor harmless. See Yeti by Molly Ltd., 259 F.3d at 1106 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(l) requires exclusion of evidence unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless, and does not require a finding of willfulness, fault, or bad faith); see also Hoffman v. Constr. Protective Servs., Inc., 541 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 37 sanctions are appropriate even if a litigant's entire cause of action falls). Moreover, Remington's contention that the district court erred and violated his right to due process by not granting his request for oral argument is unpersuasive,  [*3] as the district court was not required to do so under the local rules and Remington's opportunity to submit briefs was an "opportunity to be heard" within the meaning of Rule 37(c)(1). Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Mont. Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2003).

Share this article:


Recent Posts