Estate of Zaim Bojci v. City of San Jose

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s (1) order granting summary judgment to the City of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department, (2) decision to preclude one of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from testifying on an issue not mentioned in his expert witness report, and (3) refusal to give Plaintiffs’ proposed jury instruction. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded Plaintiffs’ expert from testifying about police officers’ obligation to approach an encounter with an emotionally disturbed individual differently than they would approach an encounter with other individuals. Rule 26(a)(2)(B)® of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires expert witnesses to prepare a written report that contains “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). The burden is on the party facing discovery…