Opinion ID: 217494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Psychological Testimony

Text: Appellants argue that the district court should have excluded testimony of Crispin's psychological treatment because Crispin failed to provide all of his medical records during discovery. We review the district court's decisions to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jadlowe, 628 F.3d 1, 23 (1st Cir. 2010). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) states, If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. Crispin identified his treating physicians in his discovery materials, and therefore Rule 37(c)(1) does not preclude the admission of their testimony. Although Crispin did not provide all of his medical records during discovery, the admission of the evidence was harmless to the Municipality because it was able to obtain the records on its own using a subpoena and the district court did not allow Crispin to use any records that he failed to provide to it. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in -16- the admission of evidence regarding Crispin's psychological treatment.