4:24-cv-00030
E.D. Tex.Sep 16, 2025Background
- Alorica sued Tech Mahindra over disputed performance under a 2021 Contract and 2022 Amendment; the Court’s summary-judgment order narrowed the case to a single jury issue: whether AT&T’s instruction to halt the Transition Plan was an "Excusable Delay" or a "revision" under the Contract.
- After the Court’s summary-judgment ruling, Tech Mahindra moved (opposed) for leave to amend its trial exhibit and witness lists, adding 24 exhibits and several deposition designations days before trial.
- Alorica opposed, arguing the disclosures were untimely, prejudicial, irrelevant to the narrowed issue, and would permit a trial-by-ambush; the Court granted Tech Mahindra leave to amend the lists but warned admissibility would be decided separately.
- Alorica moved to exclude the newly disclosed evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) and Rules 401, 402, and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- The Court held the new materials were untimely, not substantially justified or harmless, irrelevant to the controlling issue (the Contract defines "revision" as staffing a higher proportion of FTEs abroad), and—even if marginally relevant—unduly prejudicial and likely to mislead the jury.
- The Court granted Alorica’s Motion to Exclude and barred Tech Mahindra’s late-disclosed evidence from trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to admit exhibits/witnesses disclosed after discovery closed | Exclude under Rule 37: disclosure untimely, prejudicial, no substantial justification | Disclosure justified because Court’s summary-judgment order changed the central trial issue | Excluded — disclosure untimely; no substantial justification or harmlessness shown |
| Relevance of late evidence to breach claim | Evidence concerns separate post‑amendment AT&T negotiations and is not probative of the Contract’s definition of "revision" | Evidence shows AT&T’s halt was a stop-and-change (i.e., a revision) | Excluded — evidence not relevant to Contract’s unambiguous definition of "revision" |
| Whether marginal probative value is outweighed by prejudice (Rule 403) | Even if relevant, probative value is minimal and substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, delay | Probative value supports defendant’s revision theory and outweighs prejudice | Excluded — any marginal probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and risk of jury confusion |
| Whether admission would permit trial by ambush | Late wholesale overhaul of exhibits/witnesses would ambush Plaintiff and deny fair preparation | Amendment was needed only after the summary judgment order altered trial focus | Excluded — allowing evidence would permit impermissible trial-by-ambush |
Key Cases Cited
- Primrose Operating Co. v. Nat’l Am. Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2016) (two-step Rule 37(c)(1) analysis and court discretion in exclusion decisions)
- Reed v. Iowa Marine & Repair Corp., 16 F.3d 82 (5th Cir. 1994) (Rule 37’s purpose is to prevent ambush and surprise from late disclosure)
- Shelak v. White Motor Co., 581 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1978) (discovery rules intended to prevent surprise and narrow issues)
- Olivarez v. GEO Grp., Inc., 844 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2016) (Rule 26 disclosure designed to end trial-by-ambush)
- Crown Castle Fiber, L.L.C. v. City of Pasadena, Tex., 76 F.4th 425 (5th Cir. 2023) (criticizing strategic ambush tactics and endorsing fair-notice discovery principles)