Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00864/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00864-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yingzhi C Zhang, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

R. Gasteum, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-0864-PHX-JWS (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Third

Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Doc. #55).

Plaintiff contends that because the supplemental disclosure statement was submitted

after the discovery deadline it should be stricken. Defendant asserts in his Response (Doc.

#56) that the newly disclosed documents are hearing transcripts from Plaintiff's immigration

hearings. Defendant argues that these transcripts were not discovered until after the

discovery deadline. In addition, he points out that Plaintiff has not identified any harm

resulting from the late disclosure in light of the fact that he was at the immigration hearings

and is aware of what occurred there. Defendant further argues that the transcripts are

impeachment evidence and do not have to be disclosed under Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, but that he disclosed the transcripts as a courtesy to Plaintiff. Plaintiff

has not filed a reply to counter Defendant's response.

Case 2:04-cv-00864-JWS-ECV Document 57 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

The court agrees with Defendant's arguments. Defendants inability to obtain the

transcripts until after the discovery deadline has caused no harm to Plaintiff. Moreover,

under Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is not required to

disclose evidence that it may present at trial solely for impeachment. Defendant was

therefore not required to disclose the hearing transcripts and appears to have done so as a

courtesy to Plaintiff. For these reason, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Third Supplemental Disclosure Statement

(Doc. #55) is denied.

DATED this 17th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00864-JWS-ECV Document 57 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2