Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OBESITY RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

 Defendant.

 Case No.: 15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE 

[ECF NO. 343] 

 On April 13, 2017, Defendant forwarded by electronic mail to Plaintiff a 

supplement to Defendant’s initial disclosures. (See ECF No. 343-2). The 

supplement consisted of a one-page document represented to be the Third 

Amendment to Distribution and Claims Assignment Agreement Dated 

February 21, 2015, between Defendant and Shimizu Chemical Corporation. 

(Id.). The Amendment changed Section I, d. of the Agreement eliminating 

the three-year term of the assignment and, instead, making the assignment 

permanent. (Compare ECF No. 339-99 at 3 (using CM/ECF pagination 

throughout) with ECF No. 343-2 at 3). In a Joint Motion filed on May 3, 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 344 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2017, Plaintiff moves to strike the supplement as untimely and not justified 

or harmless. (ECF No. 343 at 3-6). In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that 

discovery be reopened to allow for Plaintiff to explore the background of this 

amendment. (Id. at 6). Defendant asserts that the supplement is timely, 

immaterial, not prejudicial and opposes additional discovery. (Id. at 7-11). 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike as presented in the instant Joint Motion is 

DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD 

 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs initial 

disclosures and supplementing the disclosures. Regarding initial disclosures, 

Rule 26 provides, in pertinent part, that 

“a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the 

other parties: (i) the name [and contact information if known] of each 

individual likely to have discoverable information – along with the 

subjects of that information – that the disclosing party may use to 

support its claims or defenses . . . ; [and] (ii) ... a description by category 

and location . . . of all documents . . . that the disclosing party has in its 

possession, custody or subject to its control and may use to support its 

claims and defenses . . . .” 

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i), (ii). Regarding supplementing these initial disclosures, 

Rule 26 provides, in pertinent part, that 

“[a] party . . . must supplement or correct its disclosure ... in a timely 

manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure 

... is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective 

information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties 

during the discovery process or in writing.” 

Rule 26(e)(1)(A). 

 The Advisory Committee’s note to the 1993 amendment to Rule 26(a)(1) 

states that the disclosure requirements should “be applied with common 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 344 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

sense in light of the principles of Rule 1, keeping in mind the salutary 

purposes that the rule is intended to accomplish. The litigants should not 

indulge in gamesmanship with the respect to the disclosure obligations.” 

DISCUSSION

 The materiality of the change in the Assignment agreement is 

questionable. The original term of three years would not expire until early 

2018 and, in any event, included a provision that renewal would be discussed. 

(ECF No. 339-99 at 3). The renewal, making the assignment permanent 

rather than a term of years, seems immaterial in connection with the 

progress of this litigation. Plaintiff’s argument that this change impacts 

foundational facts is unconvincing. 

 Even if material, the disclosure was timely. The Amendment was 

executed on April 13, 2017, the same day that is was served on Plaintiff. See

Declaration of John Alkire ¶2 (ECF No. 343-5 at 2). Plaintiff asserts, without 

any evidentiary support, that allowing this supplemental disclosure to stand 

will permit Defendant to rework the Assignment agreement continuously and 

backdate the result. (ECF No. 343 at 5). This paranoiac suggestion is 

unworthy of counsel. 

 There is no prejudice apparent to Plaintiff. The term of the Assignment 

was not interrupted at any time in this litigation and, even if there was no 

Amendment, would continue for nearly another year. 

 Finally, the Court is not convinced that it any further discovery is 

warranted. 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 344 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CONCLUSION

 Plaintiff’s motion to strike supplemental disclosures, as presented in 

the instant Joint Motion, is DENIED. No further discovery is authorized. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: May 17, 2017 

. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 344 Filed 05/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4