Hammonds v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:21-cv-08349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hammonds v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Judge Aaron denied Hammonds’s request to bar Burlington’s supplemental disclosure of her social-media posts.
The ruling affected Plaintiff Stephanie Hammonds’s request to exclude Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation’s supplemental disclosure of her social-media posts; the court denied that request.
What happened
In Hammonds v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Hammonds asked the court to prevent Burlington from using supplemental disclosures of her social-media posts, arguing that they were late, immaterial, and irrelevant.
The court said Hammonds had not shown that Burlington violated its disclosure duties. It also said that any delay was harmless because the posts were Hammonds’s own and she identified no prejudice. Challenges to whether the posts are admissible could be raised later.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Hammonds’s request to preclude the disclosure. The ruling concerned evidence and discovery only; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Hammonds v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-08349
- Stewart Aaron
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
The court considered Hammonds’s letter motion seeking to preclude Burlington’s supplemental disclosure of Hammonds’s social-media posts. Hammonds argued that the disclosure was untimely, immaterial, and irrelevant.
Court’s reasoning
The court noted that Hammonds cited no legal authority for her request. It nevertheless considered whether the request could be treated as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), which can prevent a party from using information that it failed to disclose as required by Rule 26.
The court held that Hammonds did not meet her burden to show that Burlington failed to timely disclose information required by Rule 26. The court also noted that disclosure is not required for information intended solely for impeachment under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Even assuming disclosure was required, the court found that any untimely disclosure was harmless because Hammonds identified no prejudice. The documents were her own social-media posts, and Burlington disclosed them several months before trial. The court said Hammonds could challenge the posts’ admissibility at the appropriate time.
Disposition
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Hammonds’s request to preclude Burlington’s supplemental disclosure.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.