Opinion ID: 147847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of the Witnesses’ Testimonies

Text: Nance argues that the district court erred in excluding the declarations of his witnesses in support of his response to REI’s motion for summary judgment. He argues that he disclosed these witnesses and their expected testimonies during his deposition in a related case, and that such deposition took place before initial disclosures were due in the present case. He argues that REI would not have been prejudiced if the witnesses’ testimonies were admitted. He further argues that the witnesses’ testimonies were relevant to confirm that: (1) REI had a discriminatory 5 policy against non-Asians; (2) REI provided a false explanation for its policy; and (3) no reasonable employer would have hired Park instead of Nance for the management position. We review a district court’s decision regarding a motion to strike evidence for abuse of discretion. Benson, 113 F.3d at 1208 (citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i) states that, aside from exceptions that are inapplicable to the present case: a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties: (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment[.] Rule 37(c) provides the consequences for a party’s failure to disclose, pursuant to the requirements of Rule 26. “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). When determining “whether the exclusion of a witness was an abuse of discretion, an appellate court should consider the explanation for the failure to disclose the witness, the importance of the testimony, and the prejudice to the 6 opposing party.” Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche, S. A. S. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 684 F.2d 776, 780 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). Here, Nance contends that he provided the names of his witnesses during his deposition with REI that took place on January 22, 2007. However, Nance acknowledges that the deposition was for another REI discrimination case, and he does not dispute that REI’s counsel in the present case was not present for the deposition in the related case. Thus, although Nance may have disclosed the names of witnesses for the other case, he failed to do so for the present case. He argues that, “[e]arly in the litigation,” he provided “a detailed statement of the information that the witnesses possessed or the information that [he] believed the witnesses possessed.” However, he cites to the same January 22, 2007 deposition in support of his argument, which he attached to his opposition of REI’s motion for sanctions, which was filed after the district court entered summary judgment in the present case. Moreover, Nance fails to provide any argument that his lack of disclosure was substantially justified. Instead, he argues that REI was not prejudiced because his witnesses were either current or former REI employees “with whom [REI] was familiar.” Because Nance did not disclose these witnesses, REI did not have the 7 opportunity to depose them and conduct thorough discovery. REI would be further prejudiced because Nance relied upon these witnesses to support the crux of his arguments that: (1) REI had “a policy of discrimination against non-Asians;” (2) REI provided a false explanation for its policy; and (3) “no reasonable employer would have selected Park over Nance for the management position at issue.” Thus, Nance does not show that his failure to disclose witnesses was substantially justified or harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited Nance from admitting the testimony of his undisclosed witnesses.