Castellanos et al v. State of California et al

Filing 92

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE DAMAGES. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/13/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDIN S. CASTELLANOS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-00272-JSW

v.
JEREMY J. MAYA,
Defendant.

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING ON
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 1: TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RE
DAMAGES
Re: Dkt. No. 64

12
13

The Court hereby issues this notice of tentative ruling on Defendant’s Motion in Limine

14

No. 1, to exclude evidence or argument of damages based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

15

Federal Rule of Evidence 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). The Court is tentatively inclined to grant this motion

16

as to the calculation of compensatory damages. It also is tentatively inclined to grant the

17

motion as to emotional distress damages, to the extent Plaintiff intends to offer a specific figure

18

for emotional distress damages at trial.

19

With respect to the latter issue, Plaintiff is correct that these types of damages may not be

20

capable of ready calculation. However, if Plaintiff intends to offer a specific dollar amount, he

21

“‘presumably has a basis and a means for arriving at the amount’” he seeks. Mahahraj v.

22

California Bank & Trust, 288 F.R.D. 458, 464 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Sandoval v. Am. Bldg.

23

Maint. Indus., Inc., 267 F.R.D. 257, 28 (D. Minn. 2007)). With respect to the issue of

24

compensatory damages, Plaintiff does not dispute that Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires him to

25

provide “a computation of each category of damages,” he claims. He simply argues that during

26

discovery, and apparently to date, he has not been able to obtain such a calculation.

27

“Rule 37(c)(1) gives teeth” to the requirements of Rule 26, “by forbidding the use at trial

28

of any information required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is not properly disclosed.” Yeti by

1

Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). “The party facing

2

sanctions bears the burden of proving that its failure to disclose the required information was

3

substantially justified or is harmless.” R&R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d

4

1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2011); accord Baca v. State of California, 13-cv-02968-SBA, 2016 WL

5

234399, at 3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) (citing Yeti by Molly, 295 F.3d at 1107).
Plaintiff argues that any failure to provide a calculation of medical expenses is harmless,

6
7

because Defendant has the documents that set forth costs incurred. In Baca, the district court

8

granted a motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s medical costs, because plaintiff failed to

9

provide a computation of those damages. 2016 WL 234399, at *5. Although the plaintiff argued
that the failure was harmless, the court rejected that argument on the basis that “a party cannot

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

avoid its obligation to provide a damage calculation merely by producing records ostensibly

12

containing such information.” Id.
The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that his failure to

13
14

provide a computation of compensatory damages or emotional distress damages is either

15

substantially justified or harmless. Under Rule 37(c)(1), that finding normally would preclude

16

Plaintiff from using such evidence at trial. Plaintiff has argued that when a sanctions order is

17

tantamount to a dismissal, the Court must “consider whether the claimed noncompliance involved

18

willfulness, fault, or bad faith, … and also to consider the availability of lesser sanctions.” R&R

19

Sails, 637 F.3d at 1247.
The parties shall be prepared to address the following questions at the pretrial conference.

20
21

1.

What is Plaintiff’s best argument that exclusion of evidence relating to compensatory

22

damages would be tantamount to dismissal of his claims for relief?

23

2.

What lesser sanctions would Plaintiff propose?

24

3.

Assuming the Court permits Agnes N. Grogan, R.N. to testify, what is Defendant’s best

25

argument that her putative testimony and expert report does not provide an adequate computation

26

of compensatory damages?

27

4.

28

damages that he claims he is due at trial?

Does Plaintiff intend to offer a specific figure at trial for the amount of emotional distress

2

1

5.

2

com
mply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) was substantially justified o is harmless
R
y
or
s?

3

nswer to this question 4 is yes, what is Plaintiff’ best argum that the failure to
s
t
’s
ment
e
If the an

Plaintif shall not fi a written response to this tentativ ruling. If, however, P
ff
ile
ve
,
Plaintiff has

4

add
ditional auth
horities that he wishes the Court to co
h
onsider, he m file a no
may
otice of addi
itional

5

aut
thorities that sets forth th citations to those auth
t
he
t
horities with pinpoint cit
tations and w
without

6

fur
rther argume by June 16, 2016.
ent,

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 13 2016
3,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3