Robinson-Hill et al v. Nurses Registry and Home Health Corporation

Filing 254

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' 202 JOINT Motion to Strike is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/12/2015. (STC)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
AT LEXINGTON
UNITED STATES ex rel. ALICIA
ROBINSON-HILL and DAVID A.
PRICE,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08-145-KKC

Plaintiffs,
V.

OPINION AND ORDER

NURSES’ REGISTRY AND HOME
HEALTH CORP., LENNIE G. HOUSE,
and VICKI S. HOUSE,
Defendants.

*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ joint motion to strike twelve (12)
witnesses—Denise Allison, Gary Burcham, Jennifer Cleaver, Sarah Cord, Tawnya Colwell,
Kari Kaufman, Nancy Noffsinger Owen, Christy Pope, Becky Rhodus, Angela Kirk Staiano,
Sherri Webb, and Nicole Whitfield—that the government disclosed in its Second
Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures (DE 202). The defendants argue that the United
States’ disclosure of these witnesses was untimely under Rule 26(e)(1), so the government
should be prohibited from calling them at trial pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e)(1), 37(c)(1). The United States objects to the defendants’ motion to strike, asserting
that it had no obligation to disclose the twelve witnesses because they were already known
to the defendants, and, in any event, the disclosure was timely (DE 213).
Rule 26(e)(1)(A) requires a party to supplement its disclosures “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[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A)
(emphasis added). Here, there was no obligation for the government to supplement its
disclosures because the twelve witnesses had “otherwise been made known” to the
defendants through the discovery process. Each of the twelve witnesses is a former
employee of defendant Nurses’ Registry. (DE 213-1). Indeed, five of the challenged
witnesses—Burcham, Kaufman, Noffsinger Owen, Kirk Staiano, and Webb—were
identified in Nurses’ Registry and Lennie House’s joint Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures as “present
or former employees of NRHH who are likely to have discoverable information that these
defendants may use to support their claims or defenses.” (DE 213-2). In addition, the other
seven witnesses were identified during the discovery process. Specifically, witnesses
Allison, Cleaver, Cord, Colwell, Pope and Whitfield were disclosed in documents produced
by the defendants (DE 213-7, DE 213-8) and witnesses Rhodus and Allison were each
disclosed and discussed in depositions taken of other witnesses (DE 213-4, DE 213-5, DE
213-6). Because the twelve (12) witnesses were otherwise made known to the defendants in
the course of litigation, there is no prejudice to the defendants in allowing the witnesses’
testimony at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Accordingly, the defendants’ joint motion to
strike (DE 202) is DENIED.
Dated May 12, 2015.

2