Harriman v. Hancock County
627 F.3d 22, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24838, 78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 415 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), a district court has the discretion to preclude evidence that was not timely disclosed as required by Rule 26(a), unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified or is harmless. This preclusion is the baseline sanction and is reviewed for abuse of discretion based on a multi-factor analysis.
Facts:
- Maine State Trooper Gregory Mitchell arrested David Harriman at a hospital for being intoxicated in violation of a prior condition.
- During the arrest process, Harriman was belligerent, verbally abusive, resisted being placed in the police cruiser, and fell to the ground.
- At the Hancock County Jail, correctional officers took custody of Harriman, who was still intoxicated and uncooperative.
- According to correctional officers, after being placed in a holding cell, Harriman began yelling and banging around naked.
- Officers heard a loud 'thump' from Harriman's cell; two officers saw him fall and strike his head against the concrete wall.
- Officers found Harriman unconscious on the floor, apparently having seizures, and called for an ambulance.
- Harriman was hospitalized for a significant head injury and has almost no memory of the events that occurred during his weekend in jail.
- Another inmate, Foster Kane (Harriman's wife's cousin), and an EMT, Jenny Sheriff, were present during or immediately after the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- David Harriman filed a civil rights action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine against Hancock County, its sheriff, and several correctional officers.
- The magistrate judge entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for initial disclosures and the close of discovery.
- After the discovery deadline passed, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Two days before his response was due, and over two months after discovery closed, Harriman's attorney submitted a 'supplemental' disclosure identifying two new witnesses, Foster Kane and Jenny Sheriff.
- Harriman submitted affidavits from Kane and Sheriff in his opposition to the defendants' summary judgment motion.
- The defendants moved to strike the affidavits as a sanction for untimely disclosure under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
- The magistrate judge granted the motion to strike the affidavits and recommended that the district court grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation in full, precluding the affidavits and entering summary judgment for the defendants.
- Harriman, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by precluding key witness affidavits as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) when they are submitted after the close of discovery and in response to a summary judgment motion, and the disclosing party knew of the witnesses' potential relevance early in the litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Howard, Circuit Judge
No. A district court does not abuse its discretion by precluding untimely disclosed evidence where the failure to disclose was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court's decision is guided by an analysis of several factors: the justification for the late disclosure, the harmlessness to the opposing party, the history of the litigation, the impact on the court's docket, and the sanctioned party's need for the evidence. In this case, Harriman's counsel knew of the potential witnesses' existence and relevance early in the litigation but failed to exercise reasonable diligence in locating them until after discovery had closed and a summary judgment motion had been filed. This lack of justification, coupled with the prejudice to the defendants and the disruption to the court's schedule, warranted the sanction of preclusion, which is the baseline sanction in such circumstances.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant discretion afforded to district courts in managing their dockets and enforcing discovery deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It serves as a stern precedent against tactical delays or a lack of diligence in discovery, clarifying that the 'mandatory preclusion' provision of Rule 37(c)(1) is a formidable tool. The decision emphasizes that a party's need for evidence, even critical evidence, does not excuse an unjustified failure to disclose it in a timely manner. Future litigants are put on notice that they cannot wait until after a dispositive motion is filed to conduct investigations that should have been completed during the discovery period.
Unlock the full brief for Harriman v. Hancock County