49 F. Supp. 3d 1346
Ct. Int'l Trade2015Background
- Plaintiff (United States) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on January 15, 2015, despite a prior Scheduling Order directing dispositive motions only after resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
- Defendants (American Casualty Co. of Reading, Rupari Food Services, and William Stilwell) moved to strike the summary-judgment filing as improper and prejudicial, or alternatively to stay consideration until the Motion to Dismiss is decided; they also sought more time to reply to Plaintiff’s opposition.
- Defendants contended the summary-judgment filing introduced new, previously undisclosed material: a declaration by Dr. Greg Lutz (whose identity plaintiff did not disclose during discovery) and a declaration by Richard Porter (alleged by Defendants to be undisclosed).
- Plaintiff responded that Lutz need not have been disclosed absent a trial date and that Porter’s identity had been disclosed in amended initial disclosures and referenced by Defendants earlier.
- The court found Porter had been disclosed and that his declaration relates to allegations in the complaint, so it could be considered; the court also held that Lutz did not have to be disclosed under USCIT Rule 26(a)(2)(C) because no trial date was set, but Defendants should be allowed to depose Lutz before responding to any summary-judgment motion.
- Because the Scheduling Order required resolution of the Motion to Dismiss before other dispositive motions, the court denied the motion to strike but granted the alternative relief: stayed action on the summary-judgment motion and set a timeline for refiling and responses after the Motion to Dismiss is decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be struck for introducing new, undisclosed evidence | Plaintiff argued it was not required to disclose the expert (Dr. Lutz) absent a trial date and had disclosed Porter | Defendants argued the Lutz and Porter declarations were undisclosed and would prejudice the court | Motion to strike denied; stay granted. Court found Porter disclosed; Lutz need not have been disclosed pre-trial but defendants may depose him before summary-judgment briefing proceeds |
| Whether the court may consider Porter’s declaration though it was not attached to the complaint | Plaintiff asserted Porter had been disclosed earlier and the declaration is related to complaint allegations | Defendants contended Porter’s declaration was new and unrelated to the complaint | Court held Porter was disclosed and his declaration relates to complaint allegations, so it may be considered in deciding the Motion to Dismiss |
| Whether expert disclosure rules (USCIT R. 26(a)(2)(C)) required pre-motion disclosure of Dr. Lutz | Plaintiff maintained Rule 26 did not require disclosure absent a trial date or court order | Defendants claimed failure to disclose expert deprived them of ability to test credentials and testimony | Court agreed Rule 26 did not mandate disclosure absent a trial date; however, defendants should be allowed to depose Lutz before summary-judgment adjudication |
| Whether Plaintiff’s summary-judgment filing was premature under the court’s Scheduling Order | Plaintiff filed summary judgment along with its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss | Defendants argued Scheduling Order required ruling on Motion to Dismiss before additional dispositive motions | Court held the filing was premature under the Scheduling Order and stayed consideration until after Motion to Dismiss is decided; set refiling and response deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Jimlar Corp. v. United States, 10 CIT 671 (motions to strike are an extraordinary remedy; granted only for flagrant rule disregard)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co. v. United States, 31 CIT 794 (motions to strike are drastic and disfavored)
- Baron Servs., Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations LLC, 717 F.3d 907 (vacating summary-judgment where opposing party lacked opportunity to depose affidavit witnesses)
- Young v. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (courts may consider documents not attached to complaint when authenticity is unquestioned and complaint revolves around them)