Initial Disclosures – Bow Tie Law

How Untimely Discovery Can Get Expert Reports Excluded

June 25, 2018 Josh Gilliland Exclusion of Evidence, Initial Disclosures, Supplemental Disclosures

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to ensure fair play and that there are no “surprises” in a lawsuit. While there are those who long for Perry Mason dramatic cross-examination, the real world has deadlines that matter. The failure to include ESI that supports a party’s defenses in Rule[…]

Hard to Decide Discovery Disputes on Proportionality if No One Knows the Value of the Case

April 15, 2015 Josh Gilliland Initial Disclosures, Proportionality, Supplemental Disclosures

Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal ordered the supplemental production of damages information in a patent case based on proportionality and supplemental disclosures. Corning Optical Communs. Wireless v. Solid, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49069, 5-8 (N.D. Cal. April 14, 2015). This is a unique argument that makes a lot of sense:[…]

A Failure to Make Initial Disclosures

June 13, 2011 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, Initial Disclosures

The Plaintiffs in Livermore v. Arnold failed to produce their initial disclosures by a Court ordered deadline. The Defendants sought production of the initial disclosures through email correspondence, only to have the Plaintiffs not respond to the disclosure request, but other issues in the email. Other attempts were also unanswered.[…]

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

October 30, 2009 Josh Gilliland Deposition, Discovery, Exclusion of Evidence, Initial Disclosures

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.[…]

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

October 6, 2009 Josh Gilliland Deposition, Discovery, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, Exclusion of Evidence, Initial Disclosures, Supplemental Disclosures

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.[…]

Disturbo se if I Don’t Produce Discovery?

September 11, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Initial Disclosures, Supplemental Disclosures

In Gotlin v. Lederman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78818 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009), the Plaintiff was precluded from using Italian medical records because of a failure to include the records in their initial disclosures. In the words of the Court, the Plaintiff’s attorney “provided virtually no discovery during the[…]