Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02458/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02458-27/pdf.json

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENERTRODE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL CAPACITOR CO. LTD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02458-HSG 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE LATEEXHANGED EXHIBITS; ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 260

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs seek exclusion of Defendants’ trial exhibits 800–870, which Plaintiffs argue were 

untimely exchanged because Defendants did not identify them at least 28 days before the initial 

pretrial conference on July 17, 2018. Dkt. No. 260 (“Motion”). Defendants argue that they timely 

submitted the exhibits in question. Dkt. No. 266 (“Opposition”). Based on the materials 

submitted, both parties appear to misrepresent the record in significant ways in their papers.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(A)(iii) provides that “a party must provide to the 

other parties and promptly file . . . an identification of each document or other exhibit, including 

summaries of other evidence—separately identifying those items the party expects to offer and 

those it may offer if the need arises.” Rule 26(a)(3)(B) provides that the district court may 

establish deadlines for such disclosures. And consistent with that authority, this Court’s Civil 

Pretrial Standing Order provides that “[a]t least 28 days before the Pretrial Conference, each party 

shall provide every other party (but not the Court) with one set of all proposed exhibits, charts, 

schedules, summaries, diagrams, and other similar documentary materials to be used in its case in 

chief at trial, together with a complete list of all such proposed exhibits.” Civil Pretrial & 

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 276 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Standing Order for Cases Before District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ¶ 3. 

Rule 37(c)(1) provides: “If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as 

required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply 

evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is 

harmless.” In addition, or instead, the court may also impose other appropriate sanctions provided 

for in Rule 37. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A)-(C). “The party facing sanctions bears the burden 

of proving that its failure to disclose the required information was substantially justified or is 

harmless.” R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012).

Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to Rule 26’s disclosure and supplementation requirements. Yeti 

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

Committee Notes to the 1993 amendments to Rule 37 describe subsection (c)(1) as a “selfexecuting,” “automatic sanction [that] provides a strong inducement for disclosure of material” 

that must be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26. Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions based on failure to disclose 

evidence in a timely manner may be appropriate “even when a litigant’s entire cause of action or 

defense” will be precluded. Yeti, 259 F.3d at 1106.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ counsel contends that the parties exchanged proposed trial exhibits and exhibit 

lists on June 23, 2018, but that then “a month and a half later, on August 9, 2018, the GC 

Defendants purported to ‘add’ some seventy-one (71) new exhibits.” Motion at 2 (citing Battin 

Decl. and exhibits). Counsel claims that “[t]he added exhibits showed up as exhibits J0800-870 in 

the Corrected Proposed Joint Trial Exhibit List.” Id.

In response, Defendants’ counsel states, with evidentiary support, that he “added exhibits 

800-844 to the exhibit list on July 17, 2018 pursuant to discussions between counsel that the list 

was to be updated.” Opposition at 1 (citing Conwell Declaration and Exhibit 2).

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations gravely concern the Court. It is disingenuous at best, 

and affirmatively misleading at worst, to omit the July 17 exchange in bringing this motion. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE at 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2018 why he 

should not be sanctioned for omitting the July 17 exchange from his motion and declaration. 

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 276 Filed 11/08/18 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

For their part, Defendants do not present any actual justification for their failure to comply 

with the Standing Order (beyond, perhaps, “the parties both agreed not to comply with the order”). 

Instead, Defendants first claim that they in fact complied with the Standing Order, for various 

technical reasons, none of which the Court finds persuasive. For example, Defendants claim that 

the first pretrial conference in this case was not, in fact, a pretrial conference, because a minute 

entry on the docket “states that the July 17, 2018 hearing was not a pretrial conference.” 

Opposition, at 2. That is, plainly, false. The minute entry in question is unambiguously to the 

contrary: “Pretrial Conference held and Motion Hearing NOT held on 7/17/2018.” Dkt. No. 208. 

The Court can see no good-faith basis for counsel’s claim otherwise. 

Defendants also maintain that at the July 2018 pretrial conference, the Court granted the 

parties free rein to revise all pretrial filings until a later date. See Opposition, at 2. That is 

incorrect. At that pretrial conference, the Court acknowledged the parties’ indication that there 

were outstanding disputes regarding some pretrial matters, and directed the parties to resolve those 

outstanding disputes before the next pretrial conference. Defense counsel said that the issues 

concerned the “jury instructions” and “verdict form.” Dkt. No. 268 at 12:16–17, 12:21–22. To 

the extent “exhibit issues” were mentioned at all, counsel said the purported dispute concerned

“our current exhibits.” Dkt. No. 268 at 12:17–18, 12:23–13:1. Defendants’ counsel failed to point 

out this obviously relevant section of the transcript in the Opposition. Nothing in the exchange 

that actually occurred amounted to an open-ended invitation to add a large number of exhibits 

later. The entire point of the Standing Order requirement is to force the parties to identify and 

disclose, well before the pretrial conference, the exhibits they actually propose to use in their case 

in chief, so that any issues can be identified and resolved by the Court in an orderly way. The 

fortuity that at the pretrial conference the Court continued the trial date is irrelevant to whether 

Defendants complied with the Standing Order. Plainly, they did not. The only question is what 

sanction is warranted for that noncompliance.

Because Plaintiffs’ counsel did not accurately represent the relevant facts in its motion, the 

Court is not in a position to rule on the motion to exclude Exhibits 800-844 (which were produced 

after the deadline in the Standing Order, but clearly with the knowledge and apparent 

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 276 Filed 11/08/18 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

acquiescence of Plaintiffs’ counsel). As to Exhibits 845–867, Plaintiffs do not explain why it did 

not object to what it now claims was a late disclosure anytime between August 9 and October 30, 

or explain in any detail what prejudice it sustained based on the timing of the disclosure given the 

November 13 trial date. The parties must be prepared to discuss these issues at 8:00 a.m. (or 

earlier if so ordered) on the first day of trial.

The Court will demand scrupulous candor, forthrightness, accuracy and the highest 

standard of professionalism from all counsel in this trial. Counsel are on notice that they must 

conduct themselves accordingly, and the Court will not tolerate half-truths or mischaracterizations 

of the record. All counsel are directed to share this order with their clients. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/8/2018

Case 4:16-cv-02458-HSG Document 276 Filed 11/08/18 Page 4 of 4