Opinion ID: 786872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mendoza Declaration

Text: 16 We review de novo the district court's decision to impose discovery sanctions, because the district court failed to make factual findings regarding the sanction. Adriana Int'l. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1407 (9th Cir.1990). In this case, the district court excluded the Mendoza declaration because Fonseca did not disclose Mendoza as a witness until one month after the supplemental disclosure deadline. We reverse the sanction because the late disclosure was both substantially justified and harmless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). 17 The district court did not consider whether the late disclosure was harmless or justified, because Fonseca, a pro se plaintiff, did not file a motion to show good cause for the late disclosure. However, the district court had instructed Fonseca regarding the good cause motion in a confusing manner: If you wish to file a motion to show good cause ... [this] new witness[] will not be permitted to be called at trial. (emphasis added). Fonseca did not file a good cause motion, but argued in response to Sysco's motion to strike the evidence that the late disclosure was substantially justified and harmless. 18 District courts must take care to insure that pro se litigants are provided with proper notice regarding the complex procedural issues involved in summary judgment proceedings. Garaux v. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439 (9th Cir.1984). The district court did not give Fonseca proper notice that the Mendoza declaration would be excluded unless Fonseca filed a good cause motion. In addition, Fonseca's late disclosure was substantially justified because it was made shortly after he learned of the discrimination against Mendoza, as well as harmless, because Sysco had a copy of the Mendoza declaration months before Fonseca's disclosure. It was error to exclude the Mendoza declaration.