Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00931/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00931-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346bc Breach of Contract

---

1 

13cv931-DHB 

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAQUEL SABRINA MOORE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 13cv931-DHB 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE 

UNDISCLOSED EXHIBITS AND 

WITNESSES 

[ECF No. 100] 

 On March 1, 2016, Defendant United States of America filed a motion in limine to 

exclude from trial exhibits and a witness that Plaintiff Raquel Sabrina Moore failed to 

timely disclose. (ECF No. 100.) Pursuant to this Court’s Amended Order re: Trial, dated 

February 18, 2016, Plaintiff had until March 8, 2016 to file an opposition to Defendant’s 

motion. (See ECF No. 94 at 4:21-22.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed any response to 

Defendant’s motion. 

 Defendant seeks to exclude the following exhibits: (1) photos from Plaintiff expert 

Carl Beels’ site inspection (Plaintiff’s Exhibits Nos. 9-81); (2) video from Mr. Beels’ site 

inspection (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 82); (3) exemplar model of wrist (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 

113); (4) demonstrative timeline of medical treatment (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 114); and 

(5) exemplar of Isagel bottle (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 115). Defendant also seeks to exclude 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 105 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

13cv931-DHB 

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

27

28

the testimony of Plaintiff’s witness, Karen Long, who will purportedly testify about 

Plaintiff’s alleged wage loss. 

1. Exhibits 9-82 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 “requires the parties to disclose the identity of 

each expert witness ‘accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness.’” 

Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)). Expert disclosures must be made “at the times and in the 

sequence that the court orders.” FED.R.CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(D). “Rule 37 ‘gives teeth’ to Rule 

26’s disclosure requirements by forbidding the use at trial of any information that is not 

properly disclosed.” Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 827 

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106). “Rule 37(c)(1) is a ‘selfexecuting,’ ‘automatic’ sanction designed to provide a strong inducement for disclosure.” 

Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 37 advisory committee’s note (1993)). Moreover, because of 

the automatic nature of this sanction, courts are not required to make a finding of 

willfulness or bad faith prior to excluding expert testimony at trial. See Hoffman v. Constr. 

Protective Servs., Inc., 541 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2008). 

 “When a party fails to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a), the party is not 

allowed to use the . . . evidence at trial unless it establishes that the failure was substantially 

justified or is harmless.” Goodman, 644 F.3d at 826 (citing FED.R.CIV. P. 37(c)(1); Torres 

v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2008)). “The burden to prove 

harmlessness is on the party seeking to avoid Rule 37’s exclusionary sanction.” Goodman, 

644 F.3d at 827 (citing Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1107). 

 “[P]articularly wide latitude [is given] to the district court’s discretion to issue 

sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106 (citing Ortiz-Lopez v. 

Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 34 (1st 

Cir. 2001)). Despite the severity of this exclusionary sanction, it may be appropriate “even 

when a litigant’s entire cause of action or defense has been precluded.” Id. (citing OrtizLopez, 248 F.3d at 35). 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 105 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

13cv931-DHB 

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

27

28

 Here, as Defendant’s motion plainly demonstrates, Plaintiff failed to produce the 

challenged photographs and video taken during Mr. Beels’ February 20, 2015 site 

inspection. Although Plaintiff timely produced Mr. Beels’ expert report on March 9, 2015, 

and his rebuttal expert report on March 20, 2015, neither report included the photographs 

and video that Defendant now seeks to exclude. Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires that expert 

reports must contain “any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them.” 

Plaintiff did not disclose the existence of these exhibits until December 18, 2015. As a 

result, they are untimely and are automatically excluded unless Plaintiff can demonstrate 

that her failure was substantially justified or harmless. Plaintiff, who does not oppose 

Defendant’s motion, fails to make such a showing. Accordingly, Exhibits 9-82 are 

excluded from trial. 

2. Exhibits 113-115

 Plaintiff also failed to timely disclose Exhibits 113-115. In fact, not only did 

Plaintiff wait to identify them until her December 18, 2015 trial exhibit list, well after the 

close of fact and expert discovery, which closed on August 22, 2014 and April 24, 2015, 

respectively, but Plaintiff has still, as of the filing of Defendant’s motion, failed to produce 

these exhibits to Defendant. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires, as part of a party’s initial 

disclosures, disclosure of all documents that the party “may use to support its claims or 

defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” Rule 26(e)(1) further requires 

that initial disclosures be supplemented “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.” 

 Plaintiff’s failure to disclose the existence of Exhibits 113-115 until December 18, 

2015, and her ongoing failure to produce them, is untimely. Based on the authorities 

discussed above, this evidence is automatically excluded unless Plaintiff can demonstrate 

that her failure was substantially justified or harmless. As noted, Plaintiff does not oppose 

Defendant’s motion and, as a result, she fails to make such a showing. 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 105 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

13cv931-DHB 

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

27

28

 Local Civil Rule 16.1.f.4.d, which provides that “[f]ailure to display and/or exchange 

exhibits to or with opposing counsel will permit the court to decline admission of same 

into evidence,” provides an additional basis to exclude Exhibits 113-115. 

 Based on the foregoing, Exhibits 113-115 are excluded from trial.1

3. Karen Long

 Finally, Plaintiff failed to timely disclose a witness, Karen Long. Rule 

26(a)(1)(A)(1) requires, as part of a party’s initial disclosures, disclosure 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, unless the 

use would be solely for impeachment.” And as noted, Rule 26(e)(1) requires timely 

supplementation of initial disclosures. 

 Here, Plaintiff did not disclose the existence of Karen Long as a potential wage loss 

witness until December 18, 2015, well after the close of discovery, despite having asserted 

a wage loss claim since the outset of this case. Based on the authorities discussed above, 

Karen Long’s testimony is automatically excluded unless Plaintiff can demonstrate that her 

failure was substantially justified or harmless. As noted, Plaintiff does not oppose 

Defendant’s motion and, as a result, she fails to make such a showing. 

 Accordingly, Karen Long is excluded as a trial witness.2

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 14, 2016 

DAVID H. BARTICK 

United States Magistrate Judge 

                                                                

1

 Because Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) does not require disclosure of documents intended 

solely for impeachment, Plaintiff shall not be precluded from introducing Exhibits 113-115 

for impeachment purposes only. 

2

 Because Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) does not require disclosure of witnesses intended solely 

for impeachment, Plaintiff shall not be precluded from calling Karen Long for 

impeachment purposes only. 

Case 3:13-cv-00931-DHB Document 105 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 4