Opinion ID: 3203360
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Affidavit of David Biancella

Text: Veverka first argues that the affidavit of David Biancella should have been excluded at summary judgment because Royal Caribbean failed to disclose Biancella in its self-executing disclosures. Federal Rule 26 requires litigants to disclose the names of individuals “likely to have discoverable information . . . that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 26 disclosures are self-executing, meaning they must be exchanged as a matter of course “without awaiting a discovery request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Additionally, Rule 26 requires supplementation of disclosures unless the information has “otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 26(e)(1)(A). A witness that was not disclosed under Rule 26 may be excluded “unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The District Court held that Biancella “was clearly ‘made known’ to [Veverka] within the meaning of Rule 26” because Royal Caribbean had filed a nearly identical affidavit by Biancella in support of its motion to transfer venue almost two years before summary judgment. Veverka, 2015 WL 1270139, at  (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26). We perceive no abuse of discretion in this ruling and will affirm the District Court’s decision. Newman v. GHS Osteopathic, Inc., 60 F.3d 153, 156 (3d Cir. 1995) (applying abuse-ofdiscretion review to district court’s decision not to exclude testimony for failure to comply with Rule 26’s self-executing disclosure requirement).