Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00949-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0949 LKK GGH

vs.

TRAYLOR BROS., INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for August 11, 2005,

was Traylor Brothers Inc.’s (“TBI”) motion to compel, filed July 13, 2005. Michael Barnes

appeared for plaintiff. Theodore Drcar appeared for defendants. After reviewing the joint

statement and supporting papers, and having heard oral argument, the court now issues the

following order. 

I. Rule 26 Disclosures Regarding Damages

Traylor contends that El Dorado Irrigation District (“EID”) has not provided

calculations or explanations to show how it arrived at the estimated damage figures. 

The court’s previous order as it pertained to Rule 26 initial disclosures is pertinent

and is repeated here.

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 254 Filed 08/17/05 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 1

 This directive supersedes the time limits set forth in Rule 26(a)(3).

2

Rule 26(a)(1)(B) requires production of documents etc.

“that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses,

unless solely for impeachment.”

Every party has a duty to supplement initial disclosures

with otherwise disclosable documents which did not come to the

party’s attention when making the initial disclosure. A rule of

reason is to be employed here. The undersigned understands that

in a case such as the present one, it may not be possible to

presently identify every document from every source of pertinence

to a claim or defense, and that procedures must be permitted which

allow the late disclosure of documents. It is not the purpose of this

order to preclude such late discovered and disclosed documents

from being utilized in this litigation. On the other hand, the “duty”

to supplement is not a “right” to act with less than best efforts to

produce all pertinent documents at the initial disclosure. Parties

that “sandbag” their adversary with late disclosed documents

which should have been disclosed earlier, i.e., could have been

initially disclosed if reasonable efforts had been made to identify

them, may find that they are precluded from using such documents

or may have other appropriate sanctions imposed against them. 

Moreover, supplementation of initial disclosures shall be made

forthwith after discovery of the non-disclosed document(s).1

Order, filed July 6, 2005.

With these considerations in mind, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C) more specifically

requires disclosure of computation of “any category of damages” claimed, and the documents

that support such. The rule itself does not elaborate on this general statement; however, the

stated purpose of the rule and some case law lends guidance as to the level of specificity

required. Rule 26(a)’s purpose is to “‘accelerate the exchange of basic information’ that is

‘needed in most cases to prepare for trial or make an informed decision about settlement.’” 1993

Advisory Committee Notes; City and County of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Co., 218 F.R.D.

219, 221 (N.D. Cal. 2003). The disclosure must be more specific in detail than broad categories

such as wrongful death, property damage. Id. The party must provide more than just a

demanded figure, and some analysis may be required. For example, a claim of lost wages may

require information relating to hours worked and pay rate. Id

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 254 Filed 08/17/05 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

3

The undersigned is not in the position at this time to question the general damages

figures given by EID, and given the availability of supportive documents, and the sure-to-betaken expert depositions, such general calculation is sufficient at this time. However, EID, and

TBI for that matter, are cautioned that they will not be permitted to supplement their Rule 26

document disclosures via the “trickle” method. Except for non-privileged Rule 26 documents

which could not have been discovered thus far in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the time

has come and gone for initial disclosures. Experts may not be funneled new supporting

documents which should have already been produced at this time, nor is it likely that the trial

judge will look kindly on the attempted use of supporting Rule 26 documents which were not

produced in accordance with court orders. Unless substantial justification is found, sanctions are

mandatory, and documents not produced for initial disclosures without valid excuse will be

precluded from use. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3), 37(c)(1); see Klonoski v. Mahlab, 156 F.3d 255,

268-269 (1st Cir. 1998) (initial disclosures); Elswick v. Nichols, 144 F. Supp. 2d 758, 762 (E.D.

Ky. 2001) (expert report); Dana Corp. V. American Std, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 1481, 1508 (n.97)

(N.D. Ind. 1994) (striking of documents warranted). 

II. SCADA Data

EID shall produce all SCADA data in raw format, within ten days of this order.

III. Shewbridge Documents

Because TBI has not demonstrated under the circumstances that EID’s privilege

log was unduly delayed, and has not shown prejudice as a result of EID’s delayed production of a

privilege log, TBI’s motion is denied with respect to these documents.

IV. Interrogatories

EID’s interrogatory responses are satisfactory. TBI’s motion is denied.

V. Sanctions

TBI requests sanctions in the amount of $5370.00. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(C)

provides that “[i]f [a motion to compel] is granted in part and denied in part,” as provided by the

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 254 Filed 08/17/05 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

4

instant order, “the court may . . . apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the

motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.” The court finds EID’s actions

“substantially justified,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(4)(A), and therefore directs each party to bear its

own costs. TBI’s request for sanctions is denied.

For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. TBI’s motion to compel, filed July 13, 2005, is denied in part and granted in

part. 

2. EID shall produce in SCADA data in raw format within ten days of the

hearing.

DATED: 8/17/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

EID949.805.wpd

Case 2:03-cv-00949-LKK -GGH Document 254 Filed 08/17/05 Page 4 of 4