Health and Happiness US LLC v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. et al.

Background

Magistrate Judge Stein previously denied Defendants’ motion to strike parts of the expert report prepared by Blake Inglish. Defendants argued that Mr. Inglish relied on conversations with three Plaintiff employees who had not previously been disclosed as people likely to have discoverable information. Judge Stein concluded that, even if Plaintiff had violated its disclosure obligations, striking the disputed portions was not the appropriate sanction under Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Medical and Scientific Communications, Inc. Judge Stein also accepted Plaintiff’s offer to make all three employees available for depositions.

Defendants’ Objections

Defendants objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), arguing that Judge Stein’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. They specifically challenged the finding that Plaintiff’s explanation for the late disclosure was logical on its face and argued that Judge Stein misapplied the factors used to determine whether striking the report was appropriate.

Ruling

Judge Schofield found that neither objection identified a clear error. The court stated that Judge Stein properly considered Plaintiff’s explanation that Mr. Inglish routinely sought updated financial information and spoke with employees for context, and properly applied the relevant factors in concluding that additional depositions were a sufficient remedy. The court therefore ordered that Defendants’ objections be overruled and that Judge Stein’s order be affirmed.