Hanson v. Blaine County et al

Filing 185

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Medical Records (Dkt. 173 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for F.R.C.P. 37(c) Sanctions (Dkt. 173 ) 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 (kt)

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. 173). The Defendants seek to exclude Plaintiff’s medical records
from the following:1 1) a January 9, 2020 visit to Southern Idaho Ophthalmology;
2) a February 5, 2020 visit to Moran Eye Center; 3) a June 3, 2020 surgical
procedure at Moran Eye Center; and 4) records from Farmington Ophthalmology
1

Defendants also seek to exclude medical records from 2016 and 2018. Plaintiff
indicates that he will not seek to admit these records because the Court previously
granted a separate motion in limine to exclude them.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

dated June 9, 2020. 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). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part
the Defendants’ Motion.
BACKGROUND
Trial in this matter is set for April 26, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the remaining
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs arising from
his pre-arrest eye surgery. Plaintiff, through his previous counsel, failed to timely
disclose medical records and information related to an expert resulting in the Court
excluding some evidence and requiring plaintiff to pay defendants’ costs for their
motion to strike. See Dkt. 61, 126, 157.
On March 16, 2021, Plaintiff served over sixty pages of medical records on
defendants. Those records included previously undisclosed medical records
generated between January 2020 and June 2020. Dkt. 173-2. These include records
from Farmington Ophthalmology regarding a keratoplasty surgery on Plaintiffs
right eye. Plaintiff indicates he may offer these records to show his current and
continuing disability and the measures he has taken to address his medical
condition. Dkt. 183.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

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 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.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that these records were not timely disclosed and are not
relevant and should be excluded. The records are likely relevant to Plaintiffs’
damages and the Court will not exclude them on this ground.
The medical records were generated between nine and fourteen months prior
to Plaintiff disclosing them to Defendants. Plaintiff makes no argument that he was
not in possession of these records, instead he states that the case was stayed
pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on Defendants’ appeal. The Ninth Circuit
entered its Opinion and Order dismissing Defendants’ appeal on August 4, 2020.
Yet, these records were not disclosed until seven months later and just over one
month before trial.
These records relate to Plaintiff’s ongoing care for his ophthalmological
conditions allegedly caused by Defendants’ indifference, including a keratoplasty
surgery. Defendants argue they are prejudiced because they do not have time for
their expert to review these records and timely respond due to the proximity of the
disclosure to trial.
Defendants previously sought to exclude supplemental medical records that
were disclosed between two and four months after coming into existence. The
Court found these records were timely and denied Defendants’ motion in limine to
exclude them. Dkt. 157. Unlike the previous records, the records currently at issue
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

were disclosed between nine and fourteen months after they were created and
seven months after the Ninth Circuit entered its order dismissing the appeal. These
records were not timely disclosed. This is especially true considering the proximity
to trial and Plaintiff’s repeated failure to timely disclose records. Plaintiff has also
not demonstrated that his failure to timely disclose these records is substantially
justified nor harmless.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Medical Records (Dkt. 173)

is GRANTED.
2.

Defendants’ Motion for F.R.C.P. 37(c) Sanctions (Dkt. 173) is

DENIED.

DATED: April 19, 2021

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5