Opinion ID: 66529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Striking of witness’s affidavit

Text: We review the exclusion of evidence, based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 violations, for an abuse of discretion. Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 728 (11th Cir. 2004). “We review a district court’s exclusion of a witness not 2 listed on the pretrial order for abuse of discretion, and consider: (1) the importance of the testimony; (2) the reason for the appellant’s failure to disclose the witness earlier; and (3) the prejudice to the opposing party if the witness had been allowed to testify. Bearint ex rel. Bearint v. Dorrell Juvenile, 389 F.3d 1339, 1353 (11th Cir. 2004). Each party is required to disclose the names of individuals who likely have discoverable information that the party may use to support its claims or defenses. F ED. R. C IV. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties are required to supplement incomplete Rule 26(a) disclosures. F ED. R. C IV. P. 26(e)(1). A party who fails to comply with Rule 26(a) or (e) is precluded from using the undisclosed witness “to supply evidence on a motion . . . unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 37(c)(1). We have held that, when a party fails to comply with Rule 26, the district court does not abuse its discretion by striking an affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 37(c). See Cooper, 390 F.3d at 727-28. Lawver did not disclose her witness either in her initial disclosure or in response to Hillcrest’s interrogatory asking Lawver to provide the names of all witnesses whom she contended possessed information in support of her claims. At no time did Lawver supplement her disclosures to reveal her intended witness to 3 Hillcrest. It is irrelevant that her witness was once an employee of Hillcrest. Lawver has not provided any adequate explanation for her failure to disclose her witness earlier. Therefore, because Lawver failed to amend her discovery disclosures to identify her witness, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion by striking her witness’s affidavit.