Harris

Harris v. United States

Good Law
132 F. App'x 183
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 25, 2005No. 03-56639; D.C. No. CV-01-09688-MMMCalifornia778 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In this Federal Tort Claims Act case, plaintiff Jacquelyn Harris challenges the district corut’s order precluding her expert witness from testifying because she did not disclose the expert’s designation and report until eight days before trial. We review a district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony or otherwise impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for abuse of discretion. Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009-10 (9th Cir.2004). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), parties must disclose the identity of any expert witnesses, as well as the expert’s report, at least 90 days before trial. Rule 37 establishes an enforcement mechanism to encourage compliance with Rule 26(a)(2), precluding use at trial of any information that was not properly disclosed unless the failure to do so was substantially justified or harmless to the other party. The district courts have wide latitude in imposing sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1). See Fed.R.Civ.P. Advisory Committee’s Note (1993); Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (9th…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.