Barnett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW BARNETT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02585-VC

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' v. MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY

SANCTIONS

BERNARD GARRIGAN, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 86 Defendants.

1. The defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied.1 Rule 37(c)(1) states that “[i]f 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 trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). “The automatic nature of the rule’s application does not mean that a district court must exclude evidence that runs afoul of Rule 26(a) or (e) . . . . Rather, the rule is automatic in the sense that a district court may properly impose an exclusion sanction where a noncompliant party has failed to show that the discovery violation was either substantially justified or harmless.” Merchant v. Corizon Health, Inc., 993 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2021). The following factors are relevant when determining whether a violation of a…