Hoffman v. Construction Protective Services, Inc.

explaining that exclusion of evidence is appropriate unless the failure to disclose was 23 substantially justified or harmless | recognizing in dicta that case 13 law is unsettled regarding individualized opt-in discovery in FLSA cases | finding that harm would occur when allowing evidence would require additional briefing and reopening discovery | discussing that the late disclosure of damages would have most likely required 21 the court to create a new briefing schedule and perhaps re-open discovery, modifications of 22 which were not harmless | upholding, district court’s exclusion of- previously undisclosed evidence because Rule 37 is a “self-executing, automatic sanction to provide a strong inducement for disclosure of material” | finding no substantial justification where plaintiffs argued that the “right to individualized discovery” in the class action context was “unsettled” | affirming exclusion of damages evidence at 19 trial because “[d]isclosure of damage calculations was mandated under Rule 26(a)” | affirming district court’s exclusion of damages evidence because “[d]isclosure of damage calculations was mandated under Rule 26(a)” | affirming a district-court order excluding the plaintiffs’ damages evidence because they failed to disclose 22 computations of those damages before the pretrial conference | finding failure to properly disclose pursuant to Rule 26(a) was not harmless where 1 the court would be required “to create a new briefing schedule” | affirming district 17 court’s determination that late disclosure of damage calculations was not harmless and 18 therefore justified exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1 | citing- Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) | finding that “[l]ater disclosure of damages would have mostly likely required the court to create a new briefing schedule and perhaps re-open discovery,” and “[s]uch modifications to the court’s and the parties’ schedules supports a finding that the failure to disclose was not harmless.” | affirming district court’s exclusion of damage claims as to 64 of 66 plaintiffs due 4 to late disclosure, because “[d]isclosure of damage calculations was mandated under Rule 5 26(a | referring to 20 Rule 37(c)(1) as “a self-executing, automatic sanction ...” | referring to 20 Rule 37(c)(1) as “a self-executing, automatic sanction ...” | "Any local rule requiring a conference prior to the court's imposition of sanctions under Rule 37(c) would be inconsistent with Rule 37(c) and, therefore, unenforceable” | “‘[W]e 20 give particularly wide latitude to the district court’s discretion to issue sanctions under Rule 21 37(c)(1).’” | belated disclosure, which could have “perhaps 22 [necessitated] re-open[ing] discovery, rather than simply set[ing] a trial date,” was not 23 harmless. | “Under Rule 37, exclusion of evidence not disclosed is appropriate unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless.” (citation omitted) | “[W]e give particularly wide latitude to the district court’s discretion to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” (citation omitted) | “[W]e give particularly wide latitude to the district court’s discretion to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” (citation omitted) | “Any local rule requiring a conference prior to 27 the court’s imposition of sanctions under Rule 37(c) would be inconsistent with Rule 37(c) and, therefore, unenforceable.” | when late disclosure will “likely require[] the court to create a new 5 briefing schedule and perhaps re-open discovery . . . the failure to disclose [is] not 6 harmless” | “Rule 37(c)(1) gives teeth to [Rule 13 26(a)(1)’s and 26(e)’s] requirements by forbidding the use at trial of any information required to 14 be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is not properly disclosed.” | applying Rule 37(c)(1) to a violation of Rule 26(e)(1)(A) | Rule 37(c)(1) exclusion 3 sanction requested in a motion in limine | Rule 37(c)(1) exclusion 3 sanction requested in a motion in limine | “L