Martinez et al v. Continental Tire The Americas, LLC

Filing 478

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kea W. Riggs. Plaintiff's 441 and 444 Motion to Strike Defendant's Notice of Errata is DENIED IN PART. Discovery and pretrial scheduling matters, as specified above, are REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar. The punitive damages motions 310 and 311 and motions to exclude Mr. Carlson's testimony 307 and 321 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties may file new motions taking into account any new di sclosures as appropriate. Defendant's 472 Motion for Leave to File Surreply, Defendant's 473 Motion to Seal and Plaintiff's 475 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Reply (Doc. 475) are all GRANTED. The Court has considered the reply and surreply as attached to the motions in making this ruling. (ve)

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 478 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
______________________

IRMA MARTINEZ, FELIPE MARTINEZ,
LARRY MUNN, JOSE PRIETO, and
LEE HUNT, as personal representative
of the estate of Abel Portillo, deceased,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR

CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS,
LLC, An Ohio Limited Liability Company
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Notice of Errata, filed on June 18, 2020 (Docs. 441, 444). Having reviewed the parties’ pleadings
and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion is not well-taken in part and,
therefore, is DENIED IN PART. Although the Court will not strike the Notice of Errata, the
Court refers the discovery issues raised in the briefing to United States Magistrate Judge John F.
Robbenhaar to determine (1) whether discovery should be reopened or whether another remedy is
appropriate; (2) whether any confidentiality issues as to discovery exist; and (3) any other
discovery or pre-trial scheduling matter he deems appropriate.
Defendant filed a Notice of Errata pertaining to two pending motions, (1) Defendant’s
partial motion for summary judgment on punitive damages (Docs. 310, 311), and (2) Defendant’s
motion to exclude Mr. Carlson’s testimony (Docs. 307, 321).

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 478 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 6

The Notice of Errata corrected a few facts in those motions. The Notice of Errata provided
that the production data previously disclosed was incomplete and significantly understated the total
number of tires produced. However, all adjustments, property damage claims, and personal injury
claims were produced.1 The new disclosure results in an adjustment rate eight times lower than
previously calculated.
Plaintiffs argue that the Notice of Errata should be stricken because (1) it is untimely and
(2) they were prejudiced. Plaintiffs did not refer to any specific legal standard. The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure appear to contemplate that errors in disclosure be corrected. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e) provides:
(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.
(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)--or who has
responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission-must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:
(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the
disclosure or response 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; or
(B) as ordered by the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Supplementation under the Rules “means correcting inaccuracies, or filling
the interstices of an incomplete report based on information that was not available at the time of
the initial disclosure.” Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1169 (D. Colo. 2006),
quoting Keener v. United States, 181 F.R.D. 639, 640 (D.Mont.1998); see Beller v. United States,
221 F.R.D. 689, 694–95 (D.N.M.2003). The error was discovered in the course of producing

1

an adjustment:
“refers to a credit a tire manufacturer gives when a tire is returned under warranty. It is a commercial concession that
a tire manufacturer makes through a dealer or a sales representative to a customer. In other words, adjustments are
business transactions related to customer satisfaction. Tires are adjusted for a variety of conditions in order to
enhance consumer satisfaction.”
See Doc. 454, Ex. 2, V. Hildebrand Dec. at ¶ 37.

2

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 478 Filed 08/13/20 Page 3 of 6

discovery responsive to a motion to compel. The Court has no reason to doubt that the failure to
disclose this data was an inadvertent mistake, and Plaintiffs do not argue or show cause otherwise.
Here, the Court finds that the new disclosures are an appropriate correction under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e) and was done in a timely manner after discovering the error.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) provides:
(c) Failure to Disclose, to Supplement an Earlier Response, or to Admit.
(1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide information or
identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use
that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a
trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or
instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be
heard:
(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
caused by the failure;
(B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and
(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). The Court concludes that Rule 37(c) is not applicable because Defendant
timely supplemented after it discovered the error. To the extent Rule 37(c) is applicable, the Court
finds that any failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless, as explained below.
“The determination of whether a Rule 26(a) violation is justified or harmless is entrusted
to the broad discretion of the district court. A district court need not make explicit findings
concerning the existence of a substantial justification or the harmlessness of a failure to disclose.”
Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1999)
(citations omitted). “Nevertheless, the following factors should guide its discretion: (1) the
prejudice or surprise to the party against whom the testimony is offered; (2) the ability of the party
to cure the prejudice; (3) the extent to which introducing such testimony would disrupt the trial;
and (4) the moving party's bad faith or willfulness.” Id. The Court analyzes the factors as follows.

3

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 478 Filed 08/13/20 Page 4 of 6

It is unclear at this point how Plaintiffs are prejudiced. The adjustment rate already
appeared to be low – as acknowledged by their expert Mr. Carlson. Plaintiffs’ theory of the case
and in the motions is that the tires were defective, and punitive damages warranted, despite the
original low adjustment rate. Plaintiffs argue that this new disclosure affects several motions
already on file. However, they did not rely on a high adjustment rate in their briefing on the
punitive damages motion or in Mr. Carlson’s expert report. As explained below, the Court will
allow the parties to refile the motions to remedy any prejudice.
Plaintiffs argue that allowing this corrected disclosure would undermine years of
discovery. They argue that “Plaintiffs have [not] had any ability to investigate why this data was
missing, why there were multiple article numbers associated with this tire, and most importantly,
whether there are additional missing data that should be included in the adjustment documents
CTA produced that were limited to only one article number.” Doc. 444 at 6. However, it is not
clear from the record how this late disclosure altered any legal or factual issue in this case.
Plaintiffs do not explain how the new adjustment data would change their argument on any pending
motion in this case. Rather, Plaintiffs appear to simply seek to verify the data provided by
Defendant.
The Court notes that the disclosure, from the record before the Court, appears to be
harmless and any prejudice can likely be cured. The Court will allow the substantive motions to
be refiled. As explained below, to the extent the magistrate judge finds that Plaintiffs have been
prejudiced, the magistrate judge can likely fashion an appropriate remedy, such as a limited
reopening of discovery.
Moreover, the new disclosure would not substantially disrupt trial. Trial has not been
scheduled yet in this case because of the extensive motions practice. Any appropriate remedy

4

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 478 Filed 08/13/20 Page 5 of 6

could likely be fashioned without disrupting trial. Finally, the Court sees no gamesmanship in the
disclosure and no evidence of bad faith. Plaintiffs do not appear to argue bad faith.
To the extent that Plaintiffs argue that the new disclosure is inadmissible, the Court
disagrees and finds that it was produced by Defendant’s computer database which qualifies as a
business record.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); McClendon v. Challenge Financial Investors Corp.,

1:08CV1189, 2009 WL 589245 at *4 (N.D. Ohio March 9, 2009). “To satisfy Rule 803(6) the

inventory records must (1) have been prepared in the normal course of business; (2) have been
made at or near the time of the events recorded; (3) be based on the personal knowledge of the
entrant or of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information to the entrant; and (4)
indicate the sources, methods and circumstances by which the record was made were trustworthy.”
United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775, 786 (10th Cir. 2008). Here, Defendant provided a sufficient
record indicating that the computer database was prepared in the normal course, made near the
time of the events record, was made on personal knowledge of a person who had duty to transmit
information, and the sources, methods, and circumstances by which the record was made were
trustworthy. See Doc. 454-1, 454 at 9.
Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Notice of Errata and will not
exclude the newly disclosed evidence.

However, Plaintiffs request that the Court reopen

discovery. The Court refers the discovery issues raised in the briefing to United States Magistrate
Judge John F. Robbenhaar to determine (1) whether discovery should be reopened; (2) whether
any other remedy is necessary; (3) whether there any confidentiality issues; and (4) any other
discovery or pre-trial scheduling matter Magistrate Judge Robbenhaar deems appropriate.
However, the Court is not willing to rule on the (1) motion for punitive damages or the (2)
motion to exclude testimony of Dennis Carlson because the record is incomplete and argument

5

Case 1:17-cv-00922-KWR-JFR Document 478 Filed 08/13/20 Page 6 of 6

undeveloped. Because the Court is not excluding the newly disclosed evidence, the Court
acknowledges that new briefing on these motions may be necessary.
Moreover, the parties do not clearly explain how the new adjustment data affects their
argument in the motions. Therefore, the Court will deny the punitive damages motions (Docs.
310, 311) and motion to exclude Mr. Carlson’s testimony (Docs. 307, 321) without prejudice to
refiling. The parties may refile the motions after Magistrate Judge Robbenhaar rules on the
discovery issues.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Notice of
Errata (Docs. 441, 444) is DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery and pretrial scheduling matters, as specified
above, are REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the punitive damages motions (Docs. 310, 311) and
motions to exclude Mr. Carlson’s testimony (Docs. 307, 321) are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The parties may file new motions taking into account any new disclosures as
appropriate.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc.
472), Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 473) and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Amended Reply (Doc. 475) are GRANTED. The Court has considered the reply and surreply as
attached to the motions in making this ruling.

6