Defendant’s Initial Disclosure Merely Indicating Potential Witnesses “May Have Information Regarding” Plaintiff’s Claim Insufficient Under Rule 26

The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to amend its initial disclosures to more fully delineate relevant witnesses. “Plaintiff argues for the first time in her reply that ‘⁠[defendant’s] initial disclosures fail to provide enough information to allow Plaintiff to identify who, among the individuals identified, should be deposed. With this argument, belated as it is, the Court also agrees. . . . [F]or each individual . . . identified in its initial disclosure, [defendant] states that the individual ‘may have information regarding recruiting, hiring, and compensation practices for faculty’ of his or her respective department.’ With a few exceptions . . . the individuals are not differentiated from one another except by specialty or department. The list reflects no ‘reasonable inquiry.’ Although [defendant] need not narrow the number of individuals, the interests of justice demand that [defendant] provide an amended 26(a)(1)(A)(i) list that better indicates, based on the information reasonably available to it, the subjects to which the listed individuals may testify if presented at trial. The Court finds, in its discretion, that a more detailed description of the subjects of the information the listed individuals likely possess will adequately protect Plaintiff from ‘trial by ambush.'”

Seaman V. Duke University et al, 1-15-cv-00462 (NCMD 2018-04-11, Order) (Joe L. Webster)

2018-04-13T12:19:02+00:00April 13th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|