Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 5, 2024

HDI Global Insurance Co. v. Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-06351
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In HDI Global Insurance Co. v. Kuehne + Nagel, Judge Liman denied HDI's motion to bar Jeanette Prince as a witness, subject to specified conditions.

Who this affects

HDI Global Insurance Co. must be allowed to depose Jeanette Prince under the stated time limit, while Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. may call Prince as a witness only after producing her declaration and paying the specified deposition expenses and reasonable related attorney's fees.

What happened

In HDI Global Insurance Co. v. Kuehne + Nagel, HDI asked the court to prevent Kuehne + Nagel from calling Jeanette Prince as a witness because the company did not identify her before discovery ended.

The court found that Kuehne + Nagel had not adequately explained its late disclosure. But the court also found no indication that the omission was deliberate, that Prince's testimony could be important, and that HDI's identified harm was the added cost of taking her deposition.

Judge Liman denied the motion on conditions: Kuehne + Nagel had to provide Prince's declaration by December 16, 2024, and make her available for a deposition lasting no more than four hours, at least 24 hours later, while paying the deposition's expenses and reasonable related attorney's fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
HDI Global Insurance Co. v. Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06351
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Dec. 5, 2024

Background

HDI Global Insurance Co. moved to prevent Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. from calling Jeanette Prince as a witness. Kuehne + Nagel had not identified Prince before discovery closed. The dispute concerns the number of packages under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the resulting amount of damages. The front of the Sea Waybills listed 480 cartons as the number of packages, while applying a definition in the Sea Waybills' terms and conditions would result in 24 packages. Kuehne + Nagel had argued that the larger numbers were included for customs-compliance purposes.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) generally prevents a party that failed to identify a witness as required by the disclosure rules from using that witness at trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The court considered the factors used to decide whether to exclude a witness: the explanation for the late disclosure, the importance of the testimony, the prejudice to the opposing party, and the possibility of a continuance. The court also considered whether a remedy less severe than excluding the witness could address the problem.

Court's Analysis

The court found that Kuehne + Nagel's failure to identify Prince before discovery closed was not substantially justified. Because the definition of “package” was a central issue, Kuehne + Nagel should have anticipated the need for evidence supporting its customs-compliance argument. The court found, however, that the omission appeared to be an oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to ambush HDI. The court also found that Prince's testimony could be important and that HDI had identified only the additional cost and expense of deposing her as prejudice.

The court concluded that HDI's prejudice could be addressed without excluding Prince. Because the case was scheduled for a bench trial, HDI would receive Prince's direct testimony through a declaration before trial and could then depose her.

Disposition

Judge Liman denied HDI's motion to preclude Kuehne + Nagel from calling Prince as a witness. The denial was conditioned on Kuehne + Nagel producing Prince's declaration by December 16, 2024, and making Prince available for a deposition lasting no more than four hours at least 24 hours after producing the declaration. Kuehne + Nagel must pay all expenses and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in taking the deposition, including travel expenses, but not fees for preparing for the deposition. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at docket entry 49.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.