Brown v. Sam's West Inc.

Filing 93

ORDER Re: 92 Minutes of Proceedings. The Court Granted in Part and Denied in Part Defendant Sam's West Inc.'s 82 Motion to Exclude Evidence and Damage. See Order for sanctions imposed against Jennifer Brown and the schedule for completing Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 8 9 10 KEVIN BROWN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) SAM’S WEST INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:15-cv-01964-LDG-CWH ORDER 11 12 This matter is before the court on defendant Sam’s West, Inc.’s (“Sam’s West”) Motion to 13 Exclude Plaintiffs’ Evidence and Damages Related to Plaintiff Jennifer Brown’s Claim of Loss of 14 Consortium Pursuant to FRCP 37 (ECF No. 82), filed on November 14, 2017. Defendant 15 Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC (“Advantage”) filed a joinder (ECF No. 83) on November 16 15, 2017. Plaintiffs Kevin Brown and Jennifer Brown filed a response (ECF No. 86) on November 17 29, 2017. Sam’s West filed a reply (ECF No. 88) on December 6, 2017. The court held a hearing 18 on the motion on February 8, 2018. (Mins. of Proceedings (ECF No. 92).) 19 At the hearing, the court found that plaintiff Jennifer Brown failed to provide initial 20 disclosures as required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court 21 further found that the failure was not substantially justified, but that it resulted in only limited harm 22 to defendants. Specifically, the court found that defendants were harmed only to the extent that 23 (1) they did not have sufficient information to evaluate whether to disclose expert witnesses 24 regarding Jennifer Brown’s loss of consortium claim, and (2) at Jennifer Brown’s deposition, she 25 was questioned regarding loss of consortium in her capacity as a witness, not a party. Thus, the 26 court granted in part and denied in part the motion, and imposed the following sanctions against 27 Jennifer Brown under Rule 37(c)(1): 28 /// 1 • 2 3 Jennifer Brown’s damages for her loss of consortium claim are limited to general damages. She may not present evidence regarding special damages, if any. • Jennifer Brown may testify regarding her loss of consortium claim, but she must not 4 use any other witnesses or documents to supply evidence in support of her loss of 5 consortium claim. 6 • Jennifer Brown may testify as a witness in support of Kevin Brown’s claims. To the 7 extent defendants seek to exclude Jennifer Brown’s testimony on Kevin Brown’s 8 loss of household services claim, defendants must file an appropriate motion in 9 limine, after participating in the meet-and-confer process under Local Rule 16-3. 10 • Defendants may re-depose Jennifer Brown at plaintiffs’ expense. Given that 11 defendants previously have deposed Jennifer Brown, this deposition must not 12 exceed two hours and defendants’ examination must focus on Jennifer Brown’s loss 13 of consortium claim, except as necessary to establish foundational matters. 14 • Defendants may disclose expert witnesses on Jennifer Brown’s loss of consortium 15 claim. Jennifer Brown may not disclose an expert witness in support of her loss of 16 consortium claim, but she may disclose rebuttal expert witnesses. 17 Additionally, the court set the following schedule for completing discovery: 18 • March 9, 2018: deadline to depose Jennifer Brown; 19 • April 6, 2018: defendants’ deadline to disclose expert witnesses; 20 • May 4, 2018: Jennifer Brown’s deadline to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses; 21 • Within 21 days of the district judge’s decision on the pending dispositive motions 22 (ECF Nos. 41, 51, 52), the parties must meet and confer and file a proposed 23 scheduling order for any remaining case-related deadlines. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: February 9, 2018 26 27 28 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?