Rose v. Marine Turbine Technologies L L C
6:21-cv-00833
W.D. La.Jun 30, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Tressa Rose sued MTT under the FLSA, alleging unpaid overtime.
- Rose's Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures did not include a damages computation; she stated she "will supplement."
- Rose produced calendar entries (purported hours) before deposition and a settlement demand containing a short damage calculation during settlement negotiations (subject to Rule 408 privilege).
- MTT moved in limine to exclude all damages evidence under Rule 37(c)(1) for failure to provide the required damages computation.
- The court examined the Rule 37 factors (explanation, prejudice, curability, and importance), noted the underlying documents had been produced and Rose was deposed about them, and found exclusion would be case-dispositive.
- The court denied MTT's motion to exclude damages evidence but said it would consider a limited continuance, limited additional discovery, and monetary sanctions for the Rule 26 violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rose should be barred from offering damages evidence for failing to provide the Rule 26(a) damages computation | Rose: she produced underlying records (calendar entries) and provided a settlement calculation; the records allow MTT to calculate damages | MTT: Rose never furnished a proper computation; the only calculation is a privileged settlement demand; MTT is prejudiced and entitled to exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1) | Denied — court found underlying documents were produced and prejudice was curable; exclusion would be case-dispositive; court permitted potential continuance, limited discovery reopening, and consideration of monetary sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Iowa Marine & Repair Corp., 16 F.3d 82 (5th Cir. 1994) (Rule 26’s basic purpose is preventing prejudice and surprise)
- Barrett v. N. Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 1996) (Rule 37 exclusion factors)
- Heidtman v. Cnty. of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing sanctions for discovery violations)
- Tex. A & M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394 (5th Cir. 2003) (consideration of prejudice and curability under Rule 37)
- CQ, Inc. v. TXU Mining Co., 565 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2009) (sanctions and limits on damages evidence for disclosure failures)
- Moore v. CITGO, 735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2013) (discussion of continuances and scope of discovery when disclosures are deficient)