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

ORDER 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TERENCE D. MANNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON

STATE PATROL; Washington State Patrol

Trooper John Doe Clevenger, Jane Doe

Clevenger, and their marital community; and

Trooper Jane DuCommon, John Doe

DuCommon, and their marital community, 

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5791RJB

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

PURSUANT TO CR 37(c)(1)

ALLOWING WITNESSES

DISCLOSED IN PLAINTIFF’S

INITIAL DISCLOSURE APRIL 26,

2006, TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL

This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to CR37(c)(1)

Allowing Witnesses Disclosed in Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure April 26, 2006, to Testify at Trial (Dkt.

57). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and

the file herein.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

This suit stems from alleged mistreatment of plaintiff Terence D. Manning in the investigation

of an alleged misdemeanor. Dkt. 1 at 3.. Dkt. 50 at 12, Dkt. 40 at 5, Dkt. 39 at 4. 

The defendants filed a Motion in Limine to exclude witnesses that were not timely disclosed

Case 3:05-cv-05791-RJB Document 66 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 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

ORDER 

Page 2

in accordance with the initial disclosure deadline. The Court held that the plaintiff’s initial disclosures

were tardy. Dkt. 52. In accordance with Federal Rule 37(c)(1), the Court allowed the parties to be

heard as to “whether exclusion of information contained in the plaintiff’s tardy initial disclosures, or

other sanctions, should be imposed.” Id. 

The plaintiff requests that no sanctions be imposed and that the tardy disclosure not be

mentioned to the jury. Dkt. 58 at 4. The plaintiff contends that the tardy disclosure was harmless.

According to the plaintiff, the defendants did not suffer prejudice as a result of the late disclosure

because the witnesses were already known to the defendants and the plaintiff would be severely

prejudiced if these witnesses were not allowed to testify. Id. at 3.

The defendants point out that disclosure obligations are not limited to witnesses who are

unknown to the opposing party and contend that even if they were aware of the witnesses, they

deserved timely disclosure of which witnesses the plaintiff would call at trial. Dkt. 59 at 2. Initial

disclosures do not provide such information, however. They require only disclosure of witnesses

likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its case and the

subjects of such information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The exclusion of all witnesses in the

plaintiff’s initial disclosures is an unduly burdensome sanction that is not justified by the defendants’

generalized claims of prejudice. The Court should therefore decline to sanction the plaintiff, but the

parties are cautioned that deadlines imposed by rule or by court order require compliance unless the

Court grants an extension. This Order is without prejudice to the parties’ rights to request exclusion

of witnesses on other grounds.

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to CR37(c)(1) Allowing Witnesses Disclosed in

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure April 26, 2006, to Testify at Trial (Dkt. 57) is GRANTED as follows:

Case 3:05-cv-05791-RJB Document 66 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 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

ORDER 

Page 3

(1) Witnesses disclosed by plaintiff in the April 26, 2006, initial disclosures may not be excluded on

the basis that those witnesses were not timely disclosed; and (2) sanctions are not warranted. 

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05791-RJB Document 66 Filed 12/01/06 Page 3 of 3