Opinion ID: 182958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Testimony of John Cloutier

Text: Before trial, Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. ruled that Dillon could not use the Cloutier testimony in his case-in-chief because of Dillon’s failure to make adequate disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) and (e). At trial, Dillon was allowed to present the Cloutier admission testimony on rebuttal. 4 Although Rule 37(c)(1) states that a party failing to provide information required by Rule 26(a) or (e) should not be allowed to use that information at trial, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) gives a district judge discretion to ‘make such orders . . . as are just’ in regard to a party's failure to obey a discovery order . . . .” Valley Eng’r Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 1998) (first alteration in the original). The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the sanction. In the alternative, West argues that the district court erred in finding that Cloutier’s testimony was proper rebuttal evidence. The district court correctly determined that testimony by Rose Titus, Dillon’s former co-worker, elicited by West, opened the door as to what Kennedy told John Cloutier regarding the reason Dillon was terminated. It was within the district court’s discretion to allow Cloutier to testify regarding his statements to Titus.