Cowley v. Sunset Yacht Charters, Inc.
ORDER denying 57 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 7/22/2011. (awe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 10-61928-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
WILLIAM T.F. COWLEY,
SUNSET YACHT CHARTERS, INC.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE [DE 57]
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff William T.F. Cowley’s Motion in
Limine [DE 57]. The Court has considered the motion, Defendant Sunset Yacht
Charters, Inc.’s Response [DE 76], and the record in this case, and is otherwise
advised in the premises.
Plaintiff seeks to strike from Defendant’s witness list 50 witnesses who were not
included in Defendant’s Rule 26(a) initial disclosures. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a) requires disclosure of “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 26(e) provides that “[a] party who has made a disclosure under
Rule 26(a) . . . must supplement or correct its disclosure . . . in a timely manner if the
party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made
known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
On June 20, 2011, Defendant submitted its Initial Witness and Exhibit Lists, with
Deposition Designations [DE 39], listing 57 trial witnesses. Plaintiff notes that only 7 of
those 57 were disclosed in Defendant’s Initial Rule 26 Disclosures [DE 57-1 at 1-3], and
therefore asks the Court to strike the remaining 50 witnesses, DE 57 ¶ 12. On July 5,
2011, two weeks after filing the instant motion, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Adoption
of Records Custodians on Plaintiff’s Witness List [DE 58], stating that he “adopts the
records custodians at #35-57 on his Witness List and removes these individuals from
the Court’s consideration and analysis in Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine at DE 57.” DE 58 ¶
6. As such, currently at issue are witnesses #7-21 and #23-34.
Defendant does not dispute that these witnesses were not included in the initial
disclosures, but argues that it had no obligation to supplement its disclosures because
the witnesses are either listed for impeachment purposes or Plaintiff was otherwise
made aware of them. Defendant represents that 22 of the previously non-disclosed
witnesses are medical providers, that Plaintiff himself identified two of the witness,
Andrew Barnes (#9) and Zach R. Bubier (#10), and that Plaintiff recruited Tyler Flood
(#7) as his replacement as captain for the Astrelle. Defendant further notes that Matt
Womble (#34)’s name appears in a “plethora of e-mails.” DE 76 at 4. Mr. Flood and
Mr. Womble are both designated as corporate representatives for Defendant, and the
discovery responses include Defendant’s corporate representations. Finally, Defendant
states that “[t]he balance of the witnesses at issue are noted in an abundance of
caution in the event that they may be needed for impeachment purposes.” DE 76 at 2.
Rule 26 does not require disclosure of witnesses who will be used solely for
impeachment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i), nor does it require a party to supplement
its disclosures if the supplemental information has already “been made known to the
other parties during the discovery process or in writing,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).
Accordingly, in light of the fact that the witnesses omitted from Defendant’s initial
disclosures are either listed solely for impeachment purposes or were somehow made
known to Plaintiff during the discovery process or in writing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff William T.F. Cowley’s Motion in
Limine [DE 57] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 22nd day of July, 2011.
Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?