Johnson v. Rush Enterprises, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLIAM LEE JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00105-SAB
11 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE EXCLUSION OF MOMENTUM’S
RETRIEVAL DAMAGES
12 v. (ECF Nos. 280, 285) 13 NATURAL GAS FUEL SYSTEMS, INC.
D.B.A. MOMENTUM FUEL
14 TECHNOLOGY, et al., 15 Defendants.
16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Currently before the Court is Defendant Carleton Technologies, Inc.’s (“Cobham”) request 20 that the Court preclude evidence of damages incurred by Natural Gas Fuel Systems, Inc. d.b.a. 21 Momentum Fuel Technology (“Momentum”) relating to Momentum’s recall of Cobham cylinders 22 due to Momentum’s failure to disclose such damages in its Rule 26 disclosures. Based upon the 23 briefs submitted by the parties, as well as the Court’s record, for the reasons explained herein, the 24 Court finds Momentum’s violation of Rule 26 warrants the sanction of precluding evidence at trial 25 regarding the damages associated with Momentum’s retrieval of Cobham’s cylinders (“retrieval 26 …