Cleveland v. The Behemoth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ROBERT CLEVELAND, Case No.: 19-cv-0672-GPC-BGS

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS

v. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

THE BEHEMOTH, [ECF 37] Defendant. 15 Plaintiff Robert Cleveland has filed a Motion for Evidence Preclusion and Monetary Sanctions for an allegedly untimely production of discovery. (Doc. 37). Defendant The Behemoth has filed an Opposition. (Doc. 40). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED. I. Timeliness of Defendant’s Supplemental Production A. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) governs supplementing discovery disclosures and responses. Subsection (1) of that Rule states: A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)—or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission—must 25 supplement or correct its disclosure or response: (A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some…