Jackson v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 586

Defendant moves for sanctions under Rule 37 based on alleged Rule 26 disclosure failures, production delays, and damages computation inadequacies.
Plaintiffs asserted medical records and bills would be provided, but did not furnish pre-discovery copies; later supplements added records and a damages computation.
Plaintiffs identified numerous treating physicians in initial disclosures; later supplements added additional providers not disclosed earlier, some disputed by Defendant.
An ex-parte Gatbonton examination occurred after discovery; Plaintiffs obtained testimony with counsel present, raising issues about non-attorney involvement.
Court concludes sanctions are warranted for failure to provide a timely damages computation, but not for the Gatbonton examination or other alleged misconduct; gravity of sanction is limited.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) damages computation sanction	Jackson complied with disclosures; damages were to be supplemented later	Plaintiffs failed to timely disclose and supplement damages computation	Part sanctions granted; exclude undisclosed providers and award fees; computation still admissible with limits
Disclosure of medical records and bills under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)	Disclosures and authorizations satisfied production duties; records provided through providers	Timely production of records/bills was required	No sanctions for Rule 34 production; disclosures adequate under the circumstances
Ex-parte Gatbonton examination and unauthorized practice of law	Examination used to oppose summary judgment; counsel present; not a deposition	Private interrogation after discovery could violate rules and practice of law	No sanctions against Plaintiffs for the Gatbonton examination
Scope of sanctions for late damages disclosure	Late disclosure does not prejudice trial; damages general damages are subjective	Late disclosure undermines discovery and trial planning	Some sanctions imposed to exclude undisclosed physicians’ records; attorney’s fees awarded
Other alleged misconduct suitability for sanctions	Issues outside proper scope for sanctions	Various misconduct warrants sanctions	Denied; not appropriate for sanctions in this motion

Hoffman v. Construction Protective Services, 541 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.2008) (late damages disclosure not harmless; exclusion of evidence considered)
Wendt v. Host International, Inc., 125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir.1997) (factors for excluding evidence under Rule 37)
Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321 (9th Cir.1991) (extrajudicial sworn statements admissible for summary judgment)
In re Lerner, 197 P.3d 1067 (Nev. 2008) (definition of 'practice of law' and its boundaries; fact-specific)
Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284 (2d Cir.2006) (sanctions framework for Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) disclosures)