Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-01246/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-01246-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLEY FOODS OF ALABAMA, )

INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:04cv1246-MHT

) (WO)

MYERS NISSI & COMPANY, )

INC., etc., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Kelley Foods of Alabama, Inc., brought this

lawsuit against defendant Myers Nissi & Company, Inc.,

for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract

and warranty. Myers Nissi contracted with Kelley Foods

to develop computer software for Kelley Foods’s

manufacturing, inventory, and financial operations and to

provide training and technical assistance to Kelley Foods

on the use and implementation of the software. Kelley

Foods asserts that the software has not performed as

represented and that Myers Nissi has not remedied the

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 10
2

software’s operational defects, nor provided adequate

training and support. 

This case is now before the court on Myers Nissi’s

motion for summary judgment, its alternative motion for

involuntary dismissal, and its alternative motion to

exclude testimony and evidence. Myers Nissi asks the

court to grant these motions as sanctions pursuant to

Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, because of Kelley Foods’s untimely

submission of the following in violation of the court’s

scheduling orders: its initial disclosures, its expert

witness list and reports, and its final witness and

exhibit lists. Kelley Foods denies noncompliance with

the court’s scheduling orders.

A. BACKGROUND

The deadlines for the disputed disclosures are

governed by the court’s uniform scheduling order entered

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Prior to

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 10
3

entry of this order, the parties were directed to file a

report of the parties’ planning meeting, which was to

include a proposed discovery plan. In that report, the

parties agreed, among other things, to exchange initial

disclosures by February 25, 2005.

The court’s uniform scheduling order adopted and

incorporated the parties’ report except to the extent the

report conflicted with the deadlines specified in the

order; the scheduling order made no mention of an initial

disclosure deadline. It contained the following pretrial

and trial dates and witness-and-exhibit-disclosure

deadlines:

“SECTION 1. A pretrial hearing of this

case is scheduled for the 12th day of

June, 2006, and this cause is set for

trial during the term of court

commencing on the 17th day of July,

2006.

...

“SECTION 8. The parties shall disclose

to each other the identity of ANY person

who may be used at trial to present

evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of

the Federal Rules of Evidence, and

provide the reports of retained experts

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 10
4

or witnesses whose duties as an employee

of the party regularly involved giving

expert testimony, required by Rule

26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, as follows:

From the plaintiff(s)--on or before

September 23, 2005.

From the defendant(s)--on or before

October 21, 2005.

The parties shall comply fully with all

requirements of Rule 26(a)(2) in regard

to disclosure of expert testimony.

...

“SECTION 10. FORTY (40) DAYS BEFORE

TRIAL, each party shall, pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 26(a)(3) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

exchange the names, addresses and

telephone numbers of all witnesses,

except witnesses solely for impeachment

purposes, separately identifying those

whom the party expects to present and

those whom the party may call if the

need arises. The witness list should

include the names of any witnesses

required to be disclosed under Paragraph

8. Unless specifically agreed between

the parties or allowed by the Court for

good cause shown, the parties shall be

precluded from calling any witness not

so identified.

...

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 10
5

“SECTION 12. FORTY (40) DAYS BEFORE

TRIAL, the parties shall, pursuant to

the provisions of Rule 26(a)(3) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

furnish opposing counsel for copying and

inspection all exhibits or tangible

evidence to be used at the trial, and

proffering counsel shall have such

evidence marked for identification prior

to trial.

“Unless specifically agreed between the

parties or allowed by the Court for good

cause shown, the parties shall be

precluded from offering such evidence

not so furnished and identified, with

the exception of evidence to be used

solely for the purpose of impeachment.

Except to the extent written objections

are served and filed FIFTEEN (15) DAYS

BEFORE TRIAL, the evidence shall be

deemed genuine and admissible in

evidence. The written objections shall

set forth the grounds and legal

authorities. All trial exhibits must be

pre-marked prior to trial.”

The court late entered an order modifying the earlier

deadlines in the following respects: the pretrial was

reset for August 4, 2006, and the trial was reset for

term of court beginning on September 11, 2006, with all

deadlines expressly tied to these two dates adjusted

accordingly. 

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 5 of 10
6

Kelley Foods provided its initial disclosures on

April 26, 2005. It filed its witness and exhibit list on

August 2, 2006. 

B. SANCTIONS STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) provides that, “If a party or

party’s attorney fails to obey a scheduling or pretrial

order, ... the judge, upon motion or the judge’s own

initiative, may make such orders with regard thereto as

are just, and among others any of the orders provided in

Rule 37(b)(2)(B), (C) , (D).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)

authorizes the court to enter orders “refusing to allow

the disobedient party to support or oppose designated

claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from

introducing designated matters in evidence”; “striking

out pleadings or parts thereof, or ... dismissing the

action or proceeding or any part thereof”; or “treating

as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders”.

These sanctions are designed to punish lawyers and

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 6 of 10
7

parties for unreasonably delaying or otherwise

interfering with the court’s ability to expeditiously

manage trial preparation, to prevent unfair prejudice to

the litigants, and to insure the integrity of the

discovery process. Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535

(11th Cir. 1985); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 318 F. Supp. 2d

1122, 1127 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (Thompson, J.). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes a district court to

dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure

to comply with a court order or the federal rules.

However, “[d]ismissal of a case with prejudice is ... a

sanction of last resort, applicable only in extreme

circumstances.” Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458

(11th Cir. 1983).

C. DISCUSSION

Myers Nissi argues that Kelley Foods should be

sanctioned because its initial disclosures, its expert

witness list and reports, and its general witness and

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 7 of 10
8

exhibit lists were all untimely. The court will address

the timeliness of each disclosure in turn.

i. Initial disclosures

Kelley Foods’s initial disclosures were untimely

because they were not provided until two months after the

deadline of February 25, 2005, set forth in the planning

report and adopted by the initial scheduling order.

While the Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions detailed above are

available remedies for Kelley Foods’s failure to obey

this court’s scheduling order, such sanctions are not

necessary for this two-month delay because, first, Myers

Nissi waited over a year to object to Kelley Foods’s

tardiness; Myers Nissi’s objection to Kelley Foods’s

conduct is itself untimely. Second, Myers Nissi cannot

establish that it has been prejudiced by the late

disclosures; Myers Nissi still obtained the information

approximately nine months prior to the end of discovery

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 8 of 10
9

and more than a year before the trial date, which allowed

Myers Nissi more than adequate time to prepare for trial.

ii. Expert witness list and reports 

The deadline for identifying expert witnesses and

disclosing expert reports--September 23, 2005--has

passed. However, Kelley Foods has not violated the

scheduling order by failing to make such disclosures

because it has no intention of calling any expert

witnesses.

iii. Witness and exhibit lists

Under the uniform scheduling order, the witness and

exhibit lists disclosure deadline was expressly tied to

the trial date. However, with modification of that

order, setting forth a new trial date, the deadline was

adjusted accordingly. Kelley Foods complied with the

adjusted deadline. 

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 9 of 10
D. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that

defendant Myers Nissi & Company, Inc.’s motion for

summary judgment, alternative motion for involuntary

dismissal, and alternative motion to exclude testimony

and evidence (Doc. No. 14) are denied.

DONE, this the 9th day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01246-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 08/09/06 Page 10 of 10