Eberle v. Town of Southampton
305 F.R.D. 32
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Scott Eberle sued the Town of Southampton and multiple police officers/departments over an August 3, 2011 custody incident; the action was filed September 7, 2012.
- The parties submitted a Joint Pre-Trial Order (JPTO) in November 2013, which Magistrate Judge Lindsay approved; discovery (including expert discovery) closed October 30, 2013.
- Defendants filed a motion on January 26, 2015 to amend the JPTO to (1) add four Town employees as trial witnesses (not in their Rule 26 disclosures) and (2) remove references to claims the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed by stipulation.
- The portion of the motion seeking removal of references to dismissed claims was unopposed and granted.
- The court denied the request to add the four undisclosed witnesses, finding the motion untimely, potentially prejudicial given the imminent trial date, and unsupported by adequate justification or declarations.
- The court required the Defendants to file an amended JPTO omitting dismissed-claim material within five days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the JPTO may be amended to add four undisclosed witnesses shortly before trial | Opposed; would be prejudiced by late addition and need for additional discovery/depositions | Sought to add witnesses for testimony that Eberle was not observed in distress and received care; failure to list was inadvertent and witnesses were identifiable from discovery | Denied: amendment would disrupt orderly trial, prejudice Plaintiff, and lack prompt notice/good cause under Rule 16 and court rules |
| Whether JPTO should be amended to remove references to claims Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed | Supported removal as stipulated by Plaintiff | Unopposed by Defendants | Granted: court ordered JPTO amended to remove dismissed-claim material |
Key Cases Cited
- HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 22 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1994) (district court has broad discretion to manage trial and deviate from pretrial order)
- Madison Consultants v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 710 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1983) (amendment of pretrial order rests in court’s discretion and is appropriate when interests of justice favor it)
- Potthast v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 400 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2005) (factors for amending pretrial orders: surprise/prejudice, cure ability, disruption, and bad faith)
- Lamborn v. Dittmer, 873 F.2d 522 (2d Cir. 1989) (Rule 16 aims to minimize prejudicial surprise and is not an inflexible straitjacket)