Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc.

Background

ChemoCentryx, Inc. and Thomas J. Schall asked the district court for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order entered by Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros. That order struck the defendants’ supplemental disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), including disclosures concerning witnesses identified in the opinion. The district court’s order refers to six untimely disclosed witnesses, although the initial description lists five names and the discussion later refers to Stone as another witness.

The parties’ arguments

The defendants argued that the magistrate judge improperly limited their ability to respond to Lead Plaintiff’s allegations concerning supposed manipulation of trial data. They said they had taken affirmative steps to comply with the disclosure rules and had supplemented their disclosures seven weeks before the close of fact discovery, nine months before summary-judgment motions, and more than a year and a half before trial. They also argued that any delay was justified because the allegations were raised nearly two years after the operative complaint and required investigation before they could identify relevant witnesses and develop defenses. The defendants further argued that excluding the witnesses was too severe a remedy under Rule 37.

Legal standard

The district court explained that it must defer to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order unless the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. “Clearly erroneous” review applies to factual findings, while legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether the magistrate judge applied the wrong legal standard or failed to consider a required element. Under Rule 26(a), parties must disclose witnesses they may use to support their claims or defenses. Rule 26(e) requires timely supplementation when a party learns that earlier disclosures were incomplete or incorrect.

Court’s analysis

The district court found that Magistrate Judge Cisneros properly considered the defendants’ arguments. It agreed that the record showed the data-manipulation accusations had begun as early as December 2023 and had become a significant feature of Lead Plaintiff’s January 2024 reply, rather than constituting a new theory that first emerged later in discovery. The court also agreed that the magistrate judge had examined whether the defendants had adequately made known the importance of each witness.

The opinion gives examples from the magistrate judge’s analysis. Stone was referenced only once in eighteen depositions, and none of more than 380 deposition exhibits were authored by Stone. Only two of those exhibits came from Dalia Rayes’s custodial file, and none were authored by her. Although Ulrich Specks and Christian Pagnoux were referenced in 10,000 produced documents, the magistrate judge found that references to them in only a small fraction of the roughly half-million documents produced were not enough to show that the defendants intended to use them at trial. The district court also agreed that the defendants had shown neither substantial justification for the disclosure violations nor that the violations were harmless, the two circumstances identified by Rule 37 as allowing a party to avoid exclusion.

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the defendants’ motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order. The opinion does not state that the underlying case was resolved by this order.