Harriman v. Hancock County
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
627 F.3d 22 (2010)
Harriman (plaintiff), badly intoxicated, was booked into jail and hours later rushed to a hospital after allegedly falling, having seizures, and being found in a puddle of urine, though he claimed correctional officers had beaten him, causing a long-term brain injury. He sued Hancock County and jail officials (defendants), and under the scheduling order initial disclosures were due July 30, 2008 and discovery closed December 3, 2008; only after defendants moved for summary judgment on the deadline did Harriman's attorney, on February 17, 2009 (two days before his response was due), disclose two new witnesses, Kane and Sheriff, whom Harriman said a private investigator had only recently located. Harriman then opposed summary judgment relying on affidavits from Kane and Sheriff that sharply contradicted the defendants' account; defendants moved to strike, the magistrate judge precluded the affidavits and recommended summary judgment, and the district court adopted that recommendation, prompting Harriman's appeal.
Whether a court may preclude evidence arising from a late disclosure, even where preclusion effectively mandates judgment for the other party, where the lateness is unjustified, not harmless, and the disclosing party has a history of missing discovery deadlines.