A Judicial Love Bite: Initial Disclosures Mean Initial Disclosures

Every now and then, rules with teeth will leave a love bite.  This is one of those cases.  The Plaintiffs identified 31 documents in their initial disclosures.  However, none of these were produced because of a claimed computer crash.  Pinkney v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56465,[…]

Read more

If It is Lost, It’s Not in Your Possession, Custody or Control under Rule 26(a)

In a prison medical treatment case, the Plaintiff brought a motion to exclude medical records pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c) after the files were not identified in the Defendants’ initial disclosures or produced in discovery.  Nance v. Wayne County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96279 (M.D. Tenn.[…]

Read more

The Titan Killer: Mandatory Exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c)(1)

Oracle and SAP are at war.  They have exchanged bayonet charges in discovery for two years in a case where Oracle has accused SAP (TomorrowNow) of “systematic and pervasive illegal downloading of Oracle software over approximately six years.”  Oracle United States v. Sap Ag, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91432 (N.D.[…]

Read more

Turning Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures into Rule 26(e) Supplemental Disclosures

What happens if more responsive documents are found after the case management order setting a required disclosure deadline? Answer: You must supplement your disclosure. In Kutrip v. City of St. Louis, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60199 (E.D. Mo. June 30, 2009), the deadline for discovery was November 30, 2006 and[…]

Read more

Mutually Assured Destruction: Striking Undisclosed ESI and Late Disclosed Witnesses

Trial practice is an art of managing your discovery, knowing your calendar deadlines and pulling part your opponent’s case by striking their key exhibits with motions in limine.  The following motions from Debose v. Broward Health to exclude two of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses and late disclosed Defense email messages sounds like the[…]

Read more