Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Preuss v. Kolmar

Preuss v. Kolmar

Ratings: (0)|Views: 609|Likes:
Published by Eric Meyer
Age HWE claims based on "old man" and swine flu comments proceed to trial. SDNY
Age HWE claims based on "old man" and swine flu comments proceed to trial. SDNY

More info:

Published by: Eric Meyer on Sep 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------xWILLIAM PREUSS, ROBERT BLOOMER, and FRANCISXAVIER CAFIERO,Plaintiffs,- against -KOLMAR LABORATORIES, INC.,Defendant.----------------------------------------------------------------------x
  No. 10-CV-6375 (CS)Appearances:Phyllis GelmanAvi MermelsteinGelman & Jones, LLP New York, New York 
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Anthony DiOrio Nina MassenJackson Lewis LLPWhite Plains, New York 
Counsel for Defendant 
 Seibel, J.Before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Kolmar Laboratories, Inc., (Doc. 45), and the Cross-Motion of Plaintiffs William Preuss, (“Preuss”),Robert Bloomer (“Bloomer”), and Francis Xavier Cafiero (“Cafiero”), (collectively, the“Plaintiffs”) to preclude certain affirmations submitted by Defendant, (Doc. 55). For the reasonsstated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART andDefendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion to Strike
In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant has submitted the followingdocuments:
Affirmation of Thad Dussinger, (Massen MSJ Aff. Ex. I (“Dussinger Aff.”))
Affirmation of Clara Bock, (Massen MSJ Aff. Ex. J (“Bock Aff.”));
Affirmation of Concita May, (Massen MSJ Aff. Ex. K (“May Aff.”));
Affirmation of Richard Matyus, (Massen MSJ Aff. Ex. N (“Matyus Aff.”)); and
Affirmation of Lisa Smith, (Massen MSJ Aff. Ex. P (“Smith Aff.”)).As a preliminary matter, I must determine exactly what should and should not be part of the record on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
 Legal Standard 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) obligates each party to provide the opposing partywith,
inter alia
, the name of “each individual likely to have discoverable information – alongwith 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). Moreover, where a disclosing party “learns that insome material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect,” that party isrequired to supplement or correct the disclosure in a timely manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) provides in relevant part that any “party [that] fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) . . . is not allowed to use thatinformation or witness to supply evidence on a motion . . . unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The rule’s purpose is to “prevent the practice
“Massen MSJ Aff.” refers to the Affidavit of Nina Massen, Esq. in Support of Defendant Kolmar Laboratories,Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiffs have submitted identical copies of the five affirmationsin support of their Motion to Strike. (
Affirmation of Phyllis Gelman in Support of Plaintiff’s [
] Motion toStrike (“Gelman MTS Aff.”), (Doc. 57), Exs. 4-8.)
 3of ‘sandbagging’ an opposing party with new evidence.”
 Ebewo v. Martinez 
, 309 F. Supp. 2d600, 607 (S.D.N.Y. 2004);
 see Am. Stock Exch., LLC v. Mopex, Inc.
, 215 F.R.D. 87, 93(S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“The purpose of these rules is to avoid surprise or trial by ambush.”) (internalquotation marks omitted).A party may “defend non-disclosure on the basis that it was substantially justified or harmless.”
U.S. Licensing Assocs., Inc. v. Rob Nelson Co.
, No. 11-CV-4517, 2012 WL 1447165,at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012). Substantial justification is defined as “justification to a degreethat could satisfy a reasonable person that parties could differ as to whether the party wasrequired to comply with the disclosure request.”
 Am. Stock Exch.
, 215 F.R.D. at 93 (internalquotation marks omitted). “The test of substantial justification is satisfied if there exists agenuine dispute concerning compliance.”
 Henrietta D. v. Giuliani
, No. 95-CV-641, 2001 WL1602114, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Failure to complywith Rule 37(c)(1) is harmless “when there is no prejudice to the party entitled to the disclosure.”
 Am. Stock Exch.
, 215 F.R.D. at 93.Despite Rule 37(c)(1)’s self-executing nature, courts have broad discretion indetermining whether and how to impose sanctions.
 Lujan v. Cabana Mgmt., Inc.
, 284 F.R.D.50, 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
; Kuntsler v. City of N.Y.
, 242 F.R.D. 261, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Further,“[p]reclusion of evidence is generally a disfavored action.”
 Am. Stock Exch.
, 215 F.R.D. at 93;
 see Lujan
, 284 F.R.D. at 68 (“Preclusion is a harsh remedy that should only be imposed in raresituations.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). “While a finding of bad faith is not required to justify preclusion of evidence under Rule 37, a court may consider bad faith in its analysis.”
, 284 F.R.D. at 68. In determining whether to preclude evidence under Rule 37(c)(1),courts examine: “(1) the party’s explanation for the failure to comply with the disclosure

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->