Kristy Rella v. Westchester BMW, Inc.

Background

Kristy Rella sued Westchester BMW, Inc.; BMW of North America, LLC; and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft after an incident in which her vehicle allegedly “burst into flames and exploded.” Trial was scheduled to begin on July 5, 2022. Rella moved to permit her parents, Gil and Rosemary Rella, to testify at trial.

Rella had not listed her parents in her initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), and she had not supplemented those disclosures under Rule 26(e). She first identified them as intended trial witnesses during a May 11, 2022 conference, although the case had been pending since 2016 and had been scheduled for trial multiple times.

Legal Standard

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires parties to identify each person likely to have discoverable information that they may use to support their claims or defenses. Under Rule 37(c)(1), a party that fails to make the required disclosure generally may not use that witness at a motion, hearing, or trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.

The court applied four factors used to decide whether to bar late-disclosed testimony: the explanation for the failure to disclose, the importance of the testimony, the prejudice to the opposing party, and whether a continuance could address the problem.

Analysis

The court found that the first factor strongly favored excluding the testimony because Rella offered no explanation for the four-year delay in identifying her parents. The court rejected Rella’s argument that references to her parents during her 2018 deposition gave sufficient notice. Mentioning potential witnesses in a deposition did not replace the required formal disclosures or supplements.

The second factor also favored exclusion. Rella said her parents’ testimony would help compare her condition before and after the incident, but she did not explain how their testimony would meaningfully add to her own testimony. The court also noted that Rella planned to present expert testimony about her medical and psychological condition, creating a risk that her parents’ testimony would be needlessly cumulative.

The third factor favored exclusion because the defendants had not had an opportunity to obtain discovery from the parents or pursue additional discovery that their depositions might have prompted. The fourth factor also favored exclusion. Discovery had been closed for more than three years, the incident had occurred more than nine years earlier, and pretrial submissions were due soon. The court would not further delay the trial or require the defendants to divert trial-preparation time to conduct late discovery.

Ruling

The court concluded that Rella’s disclosure failures were neither substantially justified nor harmless. It held that excluding the parents’ testimony was an appropriate sanction under Rule 37(c)(1).

Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Rella’s motion filed at ECF No. 197 and directed the clerk to terminate that motion. The opinion does not state that the court dismissed the underlying case or ruled on its merits.