John Berman v. Knife River Corporation
687 F. App'x 616
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Berman, proceeding pro se, sued after a motorcycle accident in a diversity action; case proceeded to jury trial in district court.
- Berman failed to provide timely and adequate expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).
- The district court excluded Berman’s expert witnesses and imposed discovery sanctions for failure to comply with court-ordered supplementation of interrogatory responses.
- The district court admitted a defense expert over Berman’s objection; Berman’s motion to exclude that expert lacked the expert report attachment and adequate grounds.
- Berman filed motions for reconsideration of evidentiary rulings, which the district court denied for failure to meet local-rule and federal standards for reconsideration.
- The district court found subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on Berman’s domicile at filing; the Ninth Circuit affirmed jurisdiction and the district court’s rulings and denied Berman’s request for judicial notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of plaintiff’s experts for disclosure failures | Berman contended experts should be allowed despite disclosure issues | Defense urged exclusion under Rule 26 and Rule 37 for untimely/inadequate disclosures | Court affirmed exclusion; district court within discretion to exclude under Rule 37(c)(1) |
| Discovery sanctions for failure to comply with court order | Berman challenged sanctions for not supplementing interrogatory responses | Defendant supported sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) | Sanctions affirmed; district court acted within discretion |
| Exclusion of defense expert testimony | Berman sought exclusion of defense expert | Knife River argued expert admissible and plaintiff failed to support exclusion motion | District court did not abuse discretion in admitting defense expert; plaintiff failed to attach report or show grounds under Rule 702 |
| Motions for reconsideration of evidentiary rulings | Berman argued district court erred in denying reconsideration | Defense argued plaintiff failed to meet local-rule/federal standards for reconsideration | Denial affirmed; Berman did not satisfy Ground-for-Reconsideration standards |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Berman argued lack of diversity due to domicile issues | Knife River contended diversity existed; district court found Berman domiciled outside California at filing | Ninth Circuit held district court did not clearly err; diversity jurisdiction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for discovery sanctions and Rule 37 discretion)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (district courts have wide latitude to impose sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1))
- Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1986) (domicile and timing rules for diversity jurisdiction)
- Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 1993) (abuse of discretion standard for compliance with local rules)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standards and grounds for reconsideration)