Durand v. Stonehouse Court Associates, LLC

MEMORANDUM

Edwin and Madelaine Durand appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment in their diversity action alleging conversion of a loader. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Am. Bankers Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 75 F.3d 1401 , 1406 (9th Cir.1996), and for an abuse of discretion its evidentiary ruling, Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm in part, reverse in part, dismiss in part, and remand.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking the Van Tassel declaration because the Durands’ failure to identify Van Tassel as a potential witness in their initial disclosures and interrogatory responses prejudiced defendants and was not substantially justified. See Hoffman v. Constr. Protective Servs., Inc., 541 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir.2008) (under Fed. R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1), the exclusion of evidence is appropriate unless the failure to disclose was “substantially justified or harmless”); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir.2001) (“Implicit in Rule 37(c)(1) is that the burden is on the party…