Opinion ID: 78201
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Deadline Discovery and Late-Disclosed Witnesses

Text: In the months after discovery closed, the district court continued to adjudicate discovery disputes and receive requests from the plaintiffs to depose and offer testimony from new witnesses. On April 19, 2006, on the motion of Drummond, the district court ruled that the disclosure reports of the plaintiffs' experts failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), and the district court barred the plaintiffs from offering any expert testimony at trial. On April 26, 2006, the district court continued the trial to October 2, 2006. On the same day that it continued the trial, the district court, on the motion of the plaintiffs, ordered the deposition of Rubio to proceed in early July 2006. On June 13, 2006, the State Department informed the district court that it had no record of any visa application from Rubio. The district court again postponed Rubio's deposition to await further information from the State Department. On August 2, 2006, the State Department informed the district court that it was not aware of any foreign policy concern that would be raised if Rubio was deposed in a third country. The district court continued the trial for the third time, to May 14, 2007. In the meantime, on May 16, 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a sworn declaration from a late-disclosed witness, Rafael Garcia, a former director of a Colombian law enforcement agency who is imprisoned in Colombia for erasing immigration records for drug traffickers. Garcia declared that in 2001 he attended a meeting between Jimenez and a representative of the United Self-Defense Forces where Jimenez gave the representative a suitcase full of money and Jimenez said that the money was to be used to pay a man to assassinate specific union leaders at Drummond. Because Garcia was in prison, a letter rogatory was necessary to make his declaration admissible at trial. The plaintiffs requested the letter on June 28, 2006. On August 10, 2006, the district court denied the request because it found that the testimony would be cumulative; the motion is untimely, and allowing this deposition at this late juncture would unduly prejudice the Defendants and delay the trial and conclusion of these cases. At a status conference the next day, the parties revisited the scheduling of Rubio's deposition. The district court expressed frustration that at every step of the matter involving Mr. Rubio's efforts to obtain a visa, the plaintiffs have either misled the court or have not been candid in what they have said to the court. The district court ordered the plaintiffs' counsel to attempt to secure a visa for Rubio to testify in the United States, and it ordered the parties to arrange to take the deposition in a foreign country if necessary. The parties scheduled the deposition for late September in Ecuador. At a status conference on September 15, 2006, Drummond expressed concern that the plaintiffs would be unable to secure Rubio's attendance because Rubio had gone into hiding after his father-in-law was killed. The plaintiffs represented to the court that they had confirmed with Rubio, through his family, that he would attend the deposition. The plaintiffs later cancelled the deposition, and it was not rescheduled. On September 21, 2006, the plaintiffs asked the district court to issue a letter rogatory to depose a second late-disclosed witness, Jorge Cuarenta, also known as Jorge 40. Jorge 40 was the leader of the Northern Bloc of the United Self-Defense Forces. Garcia stated in his declaration that Jorge 40 was meant to receive the suitcase full of money as payment for murder[ing] the union leaders. The Colombian government had arrested Jorge 40 and accused him of the murder of the union leaders. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion on December 12, 2006, because the discovery deadline had passed nine months before the plaintiffs disclosed Jorge 40, the plaintiffs had failed even to identify Jorge 40 before that deadline, and allowing testimony from Jorge 40 would prejudice Drummond and delay the trial.