Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.

Filing 56

AMENDED ORDER granting in part and denying as moot in part the 52 Defendant's Motion to Strike. The Plaintiff shall show cause why the Court should not award the Defendant attorneys' fees on or before 12:00 p.m. on June 2, 2017. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 5/31/2017. (jle)

Download PDF
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Juan Carlos Gil, Plaintiff v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Defendant ) ) ) Civil Action No. 16-23020-Civ-Scola ) Amended Order on the Defendant’s Motion to Strike This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s motion to strike the Plaintiff’s trial exhibits P-18, P-20, and P-21, and for an award of attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 52). The Plaintiff did not substantively respond to the Defendant’s motion, and the time to do so has passed. However, after the Defendant filed the motion, the Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Exhibit List, which removed exhibit P-18 (ECF No. 53). Therefore, the Court denies as moot the Defendant’s motion to strike exhibit P-18. Exhibits P-20 and P-21 are still listed on the Plaintiff’s Third Amended Exhibit List, and copies of the exhibits were filed along with the exhibit list (ECF No. 53). Exhibits P-20 and P-21 consist of a settlement agreement and a consent decree from two other matters, neither of which involved either Juan Carlos Gil or Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. The Defendant’s motion represents that the Plaintiff never produced the documents. (Mot. at 4, ECF No. 52.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) requires each party to provide to the other parties a copy of all documents that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. If a party fails to provide information as required by Rule 26(a), the party is not allowed to use that information at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Not only has the Plaintiff neglected to respond to the Defendant’s motion in order to explain why the failure to produce the documents was substantially justified or harmless, the settlement agreement and consent decree are irrelevant and inadmissible. If the Plaintiff prevails, it is possible that the consent decree and settlement agreement could be used to aid the Court in fashioning an appropriate remedy, but they are not admissible at trial as evidence of the Defendant’s liability. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant’s motion to strike exhibits P-20 and P21, and denies as moot the Defendant’s motion to strike exhibit P18 (ECF No. 52). The Plaintiff shall show cause why the Court should not award the Defendant the attorneys’ fees incurred in filing the motion to strike on or before 12:00 p.m. on June 2, 2017. Done and ordered, at Miami, Florida, on May 31, 2017. ________________________________ Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

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?