Gale v. Uintah County, 16-4099

Gale, a Uintah County jail corrections officer, was terminated in December 2011 for distributing prescription-strength (800mg) ibuprofen to inmates without prescriptions.\
Gale sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation (for campaigning for the sheriff’s challenger) and due process violations; a jury found for Defendants.\
Lamar Davis, the jail commander, submitted a declaration (attached to Gale’s summary-judgment opposition) stating he knew Gale had campaigned for Reynolds and that Merrell likely knew as well. Davis had not been listed in Gale’s initial disclosures.\
The district court declined to strike the Davis Declaration at summary judgment, finding the non-disclosure harmless under Woodworker’s Supply factors.\
At trial the court, via a motion in limine ruling, limited Davis’s testimony to topics from his CSCB (post-termination) hearing — which did not include Gale’s campaign activity — and did not apply or discuss the Woodworker’s factors.\
The Tenth Circuit held the limitation was an abuse of discretion (both for failure to apply Woodworker’s factors and for being inconsistent with the earlier summary-judgment ruling) and remanded for the district court to re-evaluate under Woodworker’s Supply and HCG Platinum and consider whether Gale is entitled to a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting Davis’s trial testimony under Rule 26/37	Gale: exclusion was improper because (1) Davis was disclosed by Defendants, (2) defendants knew Davis’s scope, and (3) the omission was harmless — court previously allowed Davis declaration at summary judgment	Defendants: Davis was not disclosed in Gale’s initial disclosures; testimony beyond CSCB hearing would prejudice and circumvent disclosure rules	Tenth Circuit: district court abused discretion. It failed to apply Woodworker’s factors and made an unexplained reversal from its summary-judgment ruling; remand to reassess and determine if new trial is required

Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1999) (articulates four-factor test for determining whether a Rule 26 disclosure violation is harmless or justified)\
HCG Platinum, LLC v. Preferred Product Placement Corp., 873 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2017) (requires district courts to consider Woodworker’s factors and to explain changes in analytic direction when imposing exclusionary sanctions)\
Cartier v. Jackson, 59 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1995) (standard of review: exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)\
Newman v. GHS Osteopathic, Inc., 60 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1995) (example holding nondisclosure harmless where opposing party knew witness and scope of knowledge)