Brief in Support of Motion to Strike and Objections to Fact Witnesses (Fed.)

– [HEADING/CAPTION] –

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ___________’S MOTION TO

STRIKE AND __________’S OBJECTIONS TO ____________’S FACT WITNESSES

NOW COMES _____________ (hereafter “Movant”) , and files this Brief in support of its Motion to Strike and its Objections to __________’s (hereafter “Respondent”) Witnesses, as follows:

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Case Filed

Plaintiff originally filed this cause of action on _______________, _____, 20___. Defendant was served and timely filed its Answer on _____________, _____, 20___. The case was assigned to The Honorable ______________.

B. Court-Ordered Deadlines

By Order signed ________________, ____, 20____, ___________________ directed the parties to “convene a litigation planning meeting pursuant to Rule 26(f), Fed. R. Civ. P.” In that Order, Respondent was directed to “file a written report with the Court, outlining the parties’ pretrial plan for this case.” The Order specifically indicated that the Report should be in the format provided by Form 35 in the Appendix of Forms, and specifically required deadlines for disclosures required by Rule 26 (a). The parties met, and filed a Proposed Litigation Planning Report on ____________, ____, 20____ that was signed by attorneys for each party. In this Proposed Litigation Planning Report, the proposed deadline for initial disclosures was _________________, _____, 20____. In the Scheduling Order issued by the Court on _______________, ____, 20____, the deadline for exchanging disclosures under Rule 26(a) was ________________, ____, 20____, as proposed by the parties in the Proposed Litigation Planning Report.

C. Respondent Failed to Provide Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures

Despite having proposed this date as the deadline for exchanging Rule 26 (a) disclosures, Respondent did not file Respondent’s disclosures by the deadline. Movant timely filed its Initial Disclosures required by F.R.C.P. 26(a) on _________________, ____, 20____. In addition, Movant filed Supplemental Disclosures on _______________, ____, 20____. Despite Rule 26(a) and an initial and the supplemental disclosure filed by Movant, Respondent never filed the Initial Disclosure as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Scheduling Order.

D. Respondent Improperly Responds to

Interrogatory Requesting Identity of Witnesses

Movant propounded Interrogatories to Respondent on ________________, ____, 20___, including an interrogatory inquiring of “the identity of people as required by Rule 26(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure” and requesting the name, address and telephone number of each individual. Respondent answered this interrogatory on ________________, ____, 20____, as follows:

- - [insert response to interrogatories] - -

Respondent listed only _______ individuals as people with knowledge.

E. Respondent Failed to Timely Supplement Responses and Disclosures

The Court’s initial Scheduling Order provided that:

All Rule 26(e) supplementation of disclosures and responses shall be made, in writing, signed, and served on the other parties.

Respondent’s interrogatory answer regarding persons with knowledge has never been supplemented or amended in the almost two and a half years since it was tendered, and Respondent has obviously never supplemented her 26(a)(1) disclosures, since Respondent never provided them in the first place.

F. Respondent Failed to File or Exchange Pretrial Disclosures

Under this Court’s Scheduling Order, the Pretrial Disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(3) were initially due on _______________, ____, 20___. Although Movant filed its required Pretrial Disclosures...