Jama v. City of Denver
304 F.R.D. 289
D. Colo.2014Background
- Plaintiffs sue City & County of Denver under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Denver Police had customs/policies causing repeated mistaken-identity arrests (Monell claim).
- Discovery plan required Denver to run database searches; Denver produced large volumes of records (main production completed by mid‑2010) identifying many non‑plaintiff mistaken‑identity arrestees.
- Plaintiffs served a Fourth Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure on November 8, 2011, identifying 108 witnesses (100 alleged mistaken‑identity victims and 8 Denver officials) after Denver filed a consolidated Monell summary judgment motion in September 2011.
- Denver moved to strike the November 2011 supplemental disclosures as untimely and prejudicial; Magistrate Judge granted motion in part, prohibiting Plaintiffs from using witnesses/documents first disclosed in that supplement (with limited exceptions).
- Plaintiffs objected; district court reviewed de novo the challenged portions, found Rule 26(a)/(e) violations, concluded disclosures were untimely (16+ months after production), and affirmed the sanction excluding the late‑disclosed witnesses/documents (except limited categories).
- Court applied Woodworker’s/Rule 37(c)(1) factors: found substantial prejudice and delay, Plaintiffs’ neglect (not necessarily malicious), and imposed exclusionary sanction to restore Denver’s position at the time of its summary‑judgment filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs had to supplement Rule 26(a) to identify 100 non‑party mistaken‑identity arrestees | Names were already "made known" via Denver’s productions and discovery correspondence; thus no new Rule 26 disclosure required | Plaintiffs still had duty to identify whom they intended to use, describe subjects, and provide contact info under Rule 26(a)(1) and timely supplement under Rule 26(e) | Court: Plaintiffs required to make explicit Rule 26(a) disclosures; prior production/letters did not satisfy Rule 26(a)/(e) or Rule 26(g) certification requirement |
| Timeliness of November 2011 supplemental disclosures | Delay excused by case complexity, turnover in Plaintiffs’ trial team, and counsel’s sabbatical | Disclosures were 16+ months after Denver’s production completed; Plaintiffs offered no adequate reason for lengthy delay | Court: Supplementation was untimely; Plaintiffs had ample opportunity and knowledge to disclose earlier |
| Appropriate sanction for Rule 26(e) violation | Exclusion is too harsh; prejudicial effect can be cured by limited reopening or other remedies | Late disclosures prejudiced Denver’s summary‑judgment posture and would require reopening discovery and expense; exclusion restores status quo | Court: Exclusion of witnesses/documents first disclosed in Fourth Supplemental Disclosures (with limited exceptions) is appropriate under Rule 37(c)(1) and Woodworker’s factors |
| Whether magistrate’s order was dispositive (standard of review) | Sanction effectively destroys Monell theory and thus should be reviewed de novo | Magistrate’s pretrial discovery order reviewed under clearly erroneous/contrary to law standard unless dispositive; but district court chose to review de novo to consider Plaintiffs’ claims fully | Court: Although not convinced it was dispositive, reviewed challenged portions de novo and affirmed magistrate’s order |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1999) (factors for sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1))
- Sender v. Mann, 225 F.R.D. 645 (D. Colo. 2004) (broad, undifferentiated witness lists insufficient under Rule 26(a)(1))
- Kramer v. Gwinnett County, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (party’s superior access to information does not relieve disclosing party’s Rule 26 duties)
- Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458 (10th Cir. 1988) (standard of review for magistrate judge orders)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005) (sanction must be just and related to discovery violation)
- Laboratory Skin Care, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D. Del. 2009) (buried or non‑specific document disclosures do not satisfy Rule 26(e))
- Kapche v. Holder, 677 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (when witness was made known during discovery, supplemental disclosure requirement may be satisfied)
- Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511 (10th Cir. 1995) (penalty imposed by magistrate can determine whether order is dispositive)