Besiso v. Barnes

Background

Jasmine Besiso and Myrone Powell brought an assault and battery action against Matt Barnes and DeMarcus Cousins. The parties filed motions asking the court to exclude witnesses who were not disclosed until the pretrial order. The motions relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37.

Rule 26 generally requires parties to identify people who may have information supporting their claims or defenses. Rule 37 allows a court to prevent a party from using an undisclosed witness at trial unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless. The court explained that it considers the reason for the late disclosure, the importance of the testimony, the resulting prejudice, and whether a postponement could address that prejudice.

Rulings on the Plaintiffs’ Motion

The plaintiffs sought to bar John Wall, Ty Lawson, and Karyn Civil. The defendants did not dispute that they failed to disclose these witnesses on time but argued that the failure was harmless. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion.

The court found that the witnesses’ testimony about what happened in the nightclub was important, while the plaintiffs faced little prejudice because they had known the witnesses’ identities and potential knowledge for more than five years. The court noted that depositions had identified the witnesses’ presence at the nightclub and, for some of them, their possible observations of the incident. The court required the defendants to make Wall, Lawson, and Civil available for depositions before trial if the plaintiffs requested them.

Rulings on Barnes’ Motion

Barnes sought to bar Philip DeFilippo, Anthony Joaquin, and Detective William Ficken. The plaintiffs conceded that these witnesses were not included in their initial disclosure but argued that the omission was harmless.

The court denied Barnes’ motion as to Joaquin and Detective Ficken. It found Joaquin’s personal observations and Detective Ficken’s testimony about statements by the defendants important. The court also found that Barnes was previously aware of their identities and potential knowledge, or did not dispute the plaintiffs’ representation that he was aware. Barnes was therefore allowed to depose them before trial.

The court granted Barnes’ motion to preclude DeFilippo’s testimony. The plaintiffs did not show that Barnes previously knew DeFilippo’s identity or potential knowledge, and they did not explain what DeFilippo would say or why the testimony was important.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the plaintiffs’ motion and granted in part and denied in part Barnes’ motion. The court directed the parties to make the permitted witnesses available for depositions before trial. It stated that any listed witness unavailable for a deposition before trial may be precluded from testifying at trial. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.