Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01360/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01360-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SANDPIPER RESORTS )

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, )

et al., ) Plaintiffs, ) 2:08-cv-01360 JWS ) vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) GLOBAL REALTY INVESTMENTS, ) [Re: Motions at Docket 155 and 160]

LLC, et al., )) Defendants. ))

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 155, third-party defendant Mohr Hackett Pederson Blakely & Randolph,

P.C. (“Mohr Hackett”) moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) to

exclude all damage information disclosed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Sandpiper Resorts

Development Corporation and Dourian Foster Investments, Inc. (“plaintiffs”) oppose the

motion at docket 159. Mohr Hackett’s reply is at docket 167. Plaintiffs’ court-authorized

sur-reply is at docket 184.

At docket 160, plaintiffs move pursuant to Local Rules 7.2 and 7.3 to strike the

motion to exclude. Mohr Hackett opposes the motion at docket 171. Plaintiffs’ reply is

at docket 175.

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 188 Filed 02/20/12 Page 1 of 4
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

1

Doc. 155-1 at 13.

2

See doc. 65 at 13–16.

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A)–(C).

-2-

Oral argument was not requested as to either motion and would not assist the

court.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ initial disclosures, made on November 5, 2010, stated that plaintiffs had

“yet to determine the full extent of their damages, but [would] supplement this disclosure

statement once damages have been calculated.”1 On December 22, 2011, plaintiffs

filed a fifth supplemental Rule 26 disclosure statement in which they elaborated on the

damages sought.

Mohr Hackett was named as a third-party defendant in this lawsuit on July 19,

2011. Service of process was made on August 2, 2011. Before Mohr-Hackett was

joined, on March 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of default judgment which

contained a damages analysis similar to that provided in plaintiffs’ fifth supplemental

disclosure.2

III. DISCUSSION

A. Exclusion is Not An Appropriate Sanction Under the Circumstances

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires a party to provide,

“without awaiting a discovery request . . . a computation of each category of damages

claimed by the disclosing party.”3

 “If a party fails to provide information . . . as required

by Rule 26(a) . . . the party is not allowed to use that information . . . at a trial, unless the

failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”4

 Less severe sanctions may also be

imposed, “[i]n addition to or instead of” exclusion, on a non-disclosing party.5

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 188 Filed 02/20/12 Page 2 of 4
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

6

City and County of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 222 (N.D. Cal.

2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)).

7

See doc. 65 at 13–16.

8

Doc. 155 at 7.

9

See doc. 135.

-3-

The thrust of Mohr Hackett’s motion is that plaintiffs’ original damages disclosure

was insufficient and, therefore, plaintiffs’ supplemental damages disclosure should be

excluded. Mohr Hackett cites no case law supporting imposition of such a drastic

sanction under similar circumstances. Moreover, supplementing an initial damages

disclosure made under Rule 26(a) is commonplace–an initial damages disclosure “is

[often] merely a preliminary assessment and is subject to revision.”6 Finally, as plaintiffs

point out, the scope of plaintiffs’ claimed damages has been available to Mohr Hackett

since it became a third-party defendant to this action.7 Consequently, plaintiffs’ delay in

supplementing their initial disclosure was harmless.

B. Extension of Deadlines

Mohr Hackett argues that, in the alternative, the court should extend all deadlines

by 120 days, so that it has sufficient opportunity to “explore the basis for [plaintiffs’]

damage claims.”8

 Plaintiffs do not oppose an extension of the current discovery

deadlines, but maintain that a 30-day extension would be adequate. The court agrees,

particularly in light of Mohr Hackett’s stipulation to the current deadlines.9

C. Motion at Docket 160

Because the court declines to exclude plaintiffs’ damages information, the motion

at docket 160 is moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Mohr Hackett’s motion at docket 155 is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part as follows: Discovery deadlines subsequent to the filing of the

motion at docket 155 are extended for an additional 30 days.

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 188 Filed 02/20/12 Page 3 of 4
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

-4-

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike at docket 160 is DENIED as moot.

DATED this 20th day of February 2012.

 /s/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 188 Filed 02/20/12 Page 4 of 4