98 F. Supp. 3d 396
D.P.R.2015Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former employees of CDT who filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 political discrimination suit against the Municipality of Yabucoa, the mayor, SM Medical Services, and related individuals.
- Plaintiffs allege adverse employment actions after the November 2012 mayoral election, tied to the New Progressive Party (NPP) relationships.
- The Court issued a Case Management Order setting a discovery deadline of October 24, 2014, and trial for April 27, 2015, plus a Joint Case Management Memorandum requiring Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures.
- Joint CMM on January 21, 2014 referenced 26(a)(3) disclosures but imposed no explicit pretrial deadline beyond Rule 26(a)(3).
- On March 16, 2015 plaintiffs announced they would call Dr. Gabriel Laborde; his March 13, 2015 sworn statement described CDT-related roles and later conflicts involving Mayor Surillo.
- Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude Laborde and the Court ultimately denied preclusion, addressing timeliness and relevancy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Laborde’s late disclosure should be precluded | Laborde’s relevance arose after discovery; late disclosure was substantially justified. | Late disclosure violates the discovery deadline and Rule 26(a)(3). | No preclusion; late disclosure substantially justified or harmless. |
| Whether Laborde’s testimony is relevant to under color of state law | Testimony clarifies Mayor Surillo’s influence over CDT and related actions. | Testimony is irrelevant if Laborde had no direct connection to plaintiffs or acts. | Testimony may be relevant to under color of state law; not excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez-Torres v. Intercontinental Trading, Inc., 158 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.1998) (Rule 26(a)(3) disclosure timing does not require discovery-period disclosure)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir.2009) (Rule 37(c) sanctions depend on substantial justification or harmlessness)
- Macaulay v. Anas, 321 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.2003) (Factors for assessing late disclosures)
- Laplace-Bayard v. Batlle, 295 F.3d 157 (1st Cir.2002) (District courts have broad discretion in Rule 37(c) sanctions)
- Harriman v. Hancock Cnty., 627 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.2010) (Late-disclosure needs substantial justification or prejudice to exclude)
- Lohnes v. Level 3 Commc’ns, Inc., 272 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.2001) (Deposition opportunities after late disclosure matter for prejudice)
- Santiago-Diaz v. Laboratorio Clinico y de Referencia del Este, 456 F.3d 272 (1st Cir.2006) (Court weighs schedule impact and prejudice in sanctions)