Hanson v. Blaine County et al

Filing 157

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER re 150 Motion in Limine to Exclude Medical Records and Motion for FRCP 37c Sanctions. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Medical Records (Dkt. 150 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED i n part as described above. Defendants' Motion for F.R.C.P. 37(c) Sanctions (Dkt. 150 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
SCOTT HANSON,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00421-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
BLAINE COUNTY; GENE D.
RAMSEY; GOODING COUNTY;
SHAUN GOUGH; IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; WILLIAM
SHUBERT; JESUS GONZALEZ;
JUDITH PETERSON; and JOHN
DOES 1-X,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants William Shubert and Jesus Gonzalez’s
Motion in Limine to Exclude Medical Records, and Motion for Rule 37(c)
Sanctions (Dkt. 150). Defendant Judith Peterson joined these motions (Dkt. 153).
The Defendants seek to exclude: 1) Prescription records from 2014 (Dkt. 150-2 at
7-8); 2) Medical records from the University of Utah Moran Eye Center generated
in August, 2016 and June, 2018 (Dkt. 150-2 at 18-26); 3) Medical records from
Southern Idaho Ophthalmology generated in April, 2019 (Dkt. 150-2 at 27-31);
and 4) Medical records from the Moran Eye Center generated in May and June,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

2019 (Dkt. 150-2 at 9-17). Defendants also request attorneys’ fees related to these
motions as sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) for failure to disclose information under
Rule 26(e). The Court orally ruled on these motions during a conference with all
counsel on September 19, 2019. This Memorandum and Order is filed to clarify
and support the Court’s oral ruling. For the reasons that follow, the Court will
grant in part and deny in part the Defendants’ Motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony
or evidence in a particular area. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th
Cir. 2009). Courts have “wide discretion” in considering and ruling upon a motion
in limine. Trichler v. Co. of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2004). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to provide to other parties “the
name ... 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). And, “[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 ... 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.” Id. R. 26(e). A party that does not timely update its discovery under Rule
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

26 may not use the substance of the discovery response to supply evidence at a trial
“unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Id. R. 37(c)(1); Yeti
by Molly Ltd. V. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir. 2001). The
party seeking to introduce the discovery must prove harmlessness. Yeti by Molly,
259 F.3d at 1107.
ANALYSIS
1. The 2014 Prescription Records
On August 16, 2019 the Plaintiff sent a supplemental discovery response to
Defendants, which included two prescription slips from Southern Idaho
Ophthalmology and corresponding receipts from Chateau Drug Center. Dkt. 150-2
at 7-8. The prescription records were generated in August, 2014. They were not
produced prior to the Plaintiff’s supplemental response.
As Plaintiff acknowledges, these records should have been included as part
of the initial disclosures. They were clearly not timely supplemented. Defendants
contend that these records should have been produced much earlier and are
harmful to Defendants. Def.’s Mem. at 6, Dkt. 150-1. Plaintiff argues that these
records do not introduce new information, but only confirm testimony to be offered
at trial. Pl.’s Resp. at 2, Dkt. 151. The Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving
that the 2014 prescription records are harmless. As such the Court will grant
Defendants’ motion as to these records.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

2. The 2016 Medical Records
Plaintiff also sent defendants medical records from the University of Utah
Moran Eye Center, which were generated in August, 2016 (Dkt. 150-2 at 21-26).
Like the 2014 records, these medical records have been in existence since well
before the close of discovery, and were not produced. The Plaintiff does not
address Defendants’ argument to exclude these records in his response. See Pl.’s
Resp., Dkt. 151. As such he has not shown that these records are harmless.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion as to these records.
3. The 2018 Medical Records
In his supplemental response, Plaintiff also produced medical records from
the Moran Eye Center generated in 2018. Dkt. 150-2 at 18-20. The Court
previously granted Defendants’ motion to exclude these records in March, 2019.
Dkt. 126. Accordingly the Court will grant Defendants’ motion as to these records.
4. The 2019 Medical Records
Finally, Plaintiff produced medical records from Southern Idaho
Opthamology generated in April 2019 (Dkt. 150-2 at 27-31), and records from the
Moran Eye Center generated in May and June 2019 (Dkt. 150-2 at 9-17). These
records were not in existence at the close of discovery. Further, these records were
provided to Defendants within a few months of coming into existence.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Accordingly, the Court finds that these records were timely produced. As such the
Court will deny Defendants’ motion to exclude these records.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above, NOW
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Medical Records (Dkt. 150)

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as described above.
2.

Defendants’ Motion for F.R.C.P. 37(c) Sanctions (Dkt. 150) is

DENIED.

DATED: September 20, 2019

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5