2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-30-2004 

# S z u s t e r m a n v

. Amo co O i l C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3360

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S z us t e r m a n v

. Amoc o Oi l C o " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 303. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/303NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-3360
JER RY SZUS TERMAN; 10-12 SUSSEX AVENU E CORP.

Ap pellan ts
v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY
App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. Civi l Action No. 00-cv-04744) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 14, 2004 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , AL ITO and AM BR O, Circuit Judges (fil ed September 30, 2004)

OPI NION
AM BR O, Circuit

Judge In 1995, Jerry Szusterman opened a g asoline station by enteri ng into a franchise1 Am oco is no w k now n as BP Pro duc ts A me rica I nc. 2 Co -pla intif f Su ssex is the real p rop erty ow ner of S zus term an’ s ga s stat ion site. Acc or di ng to Amo co , i t h as no c ont ra ctua l rel atio ns hi p wi th Sus se x. For co nve ni en ce , w e refe r to S zus term an a nd S uss ex jo intly an d se ver ally on ly by the f orm er’s n am e. 2 agreem ent with A moco Oil Co mpan y (“Amo co”). 1 On Novem ber 27, 2000, Szusterman and 10-12 Sussex Avenue Corp. (“Sussex”) 2 brought a s uit aga inst Amoco. Szusterman alleg ed, inter alia , breac h of the i mplied covenant of good faith and fair

deali ng, cl aiming that hi s busines s had subst antia lly decli ned because Amoco opened or al lowed to be open ed fiv e A mo co-b rand ed ga soline s tations in close p roxim ity to Szus terma n’s sinc e its opening. Amoco responded that its agreement wit

h Szusterman did not gra nt him any
exc lusiv e rig ht to distr ibu te A mo co g aso line i n an y partic ular geo gra phi c are a. On Novem ber 30, 2000, during t he discovery period, t

he Magistrate Judge approved a pre tri al schedul ing order direct ing the parti es to concl ude all discovery by August 30, 2001. Because Szuste rman indic ated that he pl anned to furnish i nformati on abou t his dam age c laims b ased on ex perts’ v aluatio ns, the p arties w ere also orde red to provide i nformati on about anyof thei r expert s by J une 30, 2001. The record shows that Szusterman failed to provide Amoco w ith the basis for his damage claims or experts’ valu ation s of the a llege d da ma ges des pite A mo co’ s rep eate d re que sts fo r this info rma tion
. On August 22, 2001, t

he Magistrate Judge modifi ed his pr etri al schedul e by extending the disco very dea dline b y four m onth s until D ecem ber 1 7, 200 1 and directin g Sz usterm an to serve any exp ert report by Octob er 15, 200 1. The M agistrate Judge w arned that there3

would be no furthe r extens ions of these deadl ines. Szusterman again did not provide information about a n expert wit ness by the deadl ine. On February 5, 2002, i n the fi nal pretrial order, t

he Magistrate Judge st ated that no expert would be permi tted to testify at tri al unle ss information about the expert and his report were provided. Szusterman failed to p rov ide th e rele van t info rma tion
. On Feb rua ry 15, 2 002 , Szu sterm an r equ este d ad ditio nal ti me to lo cate an e xpe rt. On M arch 5, 2002, the Magistr ate Judge de nied that reques t. He expl ained that the denial was consistent with t

he earl ier warni ng. The District Court upheld t

his deci sion on March 19, 20 02. U pon Szu sterm an’s m otion f or reco nside ration, th e D istrict Co urt aga in affirmed i ts deci sion on April26, 2002, s tati ng that “ there [ was] no explanat ion for [Szusterman’s] fai lure t o timel y r equest an e xtensi on to dis close an e xpert. ” It adde d that wh ether S zuster man “had alread y chose n a ten tative ex pert an d did not d isclose him because he may not have been ava ilabl e . . . does not help [Szusterman]” and that “[Szusterman] should have di sclose d [the expert] and l ater requested l eave to change experts if he became unavai lable .” The Dist rict Court concl uded that

Szusterman “faile d to show that

the Magistr ate Judge[ ]’s Order was clearl y er

roneous or c ontrary t o the la w.” See U nited S tates v. R add atz , 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980) (“ Review by the dist rict court of the magist

rate’ s determinati on of the[] nondi spositive moti ons is on a ‘ clear ly erroneous
or co ntrary to law ’ stand ard.”); see g ener ally 28 U.S.C. § 636. Thereafter , the record s hows that Szusterman did not furnis h any fac ts or3 The Ru le prov ides in p ertinen t part: (a) Requ ired Disclosu res; Me thods to D iscover A dditional M atter. (1) In itial D isclo sure s. . . . [A] party must , without awaiti ng a disc ove ry requ est, provide t o other part ies : . . . (C) a compu tation of any category of damages clai med by the discl osing party, making available for inspect ion and copyi ng as under Rule 34 the documents or ot

her evide ntiar

y material , not priv ilege d or pro tecte d fr om disc losu re, on which such computation is based , inc luding mat erial s beari ng on the n atur e an d ex tent o f inju ries s uff ered ; . . . . Fed . R. C iv. P roc . 26( a)(1 )(c) ( em pha sis ad ded ).
4 methodologybased on which he cal culat ed his al leged damages, despit e the re peated request s to do so. Amoco thus moved to precl ude Szusterman from offering evi dence concerni ng damages and reques ted summaryjudgment. On July 8, 2003, the Distri ct Court granted Amoco’s motion and ent ered summaryjudgment agai nst Szusterman. In rul ing to pr eclude Szusterman from offeri ng evidence of damages at trial, the Distri ct Court, among other things, pointed out that Szus terman fai led to pr ovide a
com putatio n of his alleg ed $1 0,000 ,000 d ama ges re quired by Fed eral R ule of Civil Proced ure 26(a)(1)(C ). 3 The Court stated that Szust erman “ha[d] no s ubstantial justific ation f

or fail ing to di sclose the inf ormation t

hat has bee n request ed both by [Amoco] and requir ed in the pretrial order and under t he rules over the l ast al most thr ee year s . . . .” Moreover, as t he District Court

noted, although Szus terman demanded $10,000,000 i n damages, when asked how he had cal culat ed that figure i n his deposi tion,4 

### See Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas . Co. , 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984) (“In exercising ou r appellate fu nction to d etermine whether th e trial court has ab used its discretion in d ismissing, or refusin g to lift a def ault, we will be g uided by the manner in which the t

rial c ourt bala

nced the following fact

ors, which have been enumera ted in the earlier ca ses, and whether the record supports it s findings: (1) the extent of the party ’s personal responsibility ; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by t

he failure to meet scheduling orders a

nd respond to di scovery ; (3) a hi story of dilator iness; (4) whethe

r the conduct of the

party or the at torney was willful or in bad fa

ith; (5)the effectivenes s of sancti ons other t

han dism issal , which ent

ails a n analy sis of al

ternat ive sanctions; a

nd (6) the meritori ousness of the claim or defense. ”).
5 he a nsw ered , “I d on’ t kn ow .” Further concludi ng that t

he dismis sal of t

he case was the only appropri ate sanc tion, the Dist rict Court found that Szust erman’s fai lure t o provide r equired i nformati on was not only unjustifie d, but was pr ejudic ial to Amoco. He explained: “There is no questi on that[,] w ithout th is info rmatio n, [A mo co] w ould not b e able to resp ond adeq uately to dama ges that are alleged by [Szusterm an] and is left to w onder w hat . . . [Szusterman ]’s dam ages and m ethod olog ies are . . . .” P lus, the C ourt fo und Szu sterm an’s f ailure to abide bythe Federa l Rule was will ful “becaus e it was cl ear from the many re quests t hat [he was] aware that thi s information was neces sary , sought and ordered by

the Court. ” Applyi ng the Poulis factors, 4 the Dist rict Court ultimatel y concl uded (on the morni ng of trial) th at sa nctio ns o ther than dism issal wo uld be in eff ectiv e. Szusterm an mo ved fo r reconsideration . On A ugust 26 , 2003, the D istrict Court denie d that m otion. S zuster man appe als. H is claim is that the Distric t Cou rt abus ed its discr etion when i t (a) affirmed t he Magistrate Judge’s refusal to extend t he deadli ne6

further for dis closi ng Szusterman’s expert s, ( b) exclude d his evi dence for damages at trial, and ( c) ultim ately dism issed h is case . For th e reaso ns giv en by the Distric t Cou rt, we agree with i ts deci sion t o uphold the Magist rate J udge’s rul ing and to e xclude Szusterm an’s eviden ce conc erning dam ages at trial. Upon reviewing the record b efore us, we are convinc ed that the D istrict Court thoroug hly examined Szusterm an’s arguments, careful ly weighed the Poulis factor s, and r easonably concluded that the dism issal wa s w arra nted . Th eref ore , we aff irm.