United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge.
subject of this entry demonstrates, the failure to diligently
respond to a discovery request can carry serious
consequences. At the final pretrial conference held on March
15, 2019, the Court heard argument on the City of Terre
Haute's (“City”) Objections to Mr.
Stillman's untimely production of evidence concerning his
earnings. The parties confirmed that, despite receiving a
request for production of the documents on October 23, 2017,
Mr. Stillman failed to meaningfully produce evidence to
support his lost wage claims until the week before the final
pretrial conference-some two and a half months after the
close of damages discovery. [Filing No. 16 at 5.]
Mr. Stillman has not identified any substantial justification
for the failure to supplement his document production until
the eve of trial, and the failure was not harmless.
Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the
City's Objections to Mr. Stillman's untimely-produced
tax transcripts, W-2s, and earnings statements, [Filing
No. 82], and will, as set forth below, limit Mr.
Stillman's wage claim to damages through the date of his
March 15, 2019, the Court held a final pretrial conference in
this matter. The Court provided both parties with the
opportunity to be heard and present argument on the
City's Objections to the tax and earnings exhibits listed
on Mr. Stillman's Amended Final Exhibit List. At the
final pretrial conference, the parties confirmed the accuracy
of the following facts concerning discovery in this matter.
October 23, 2017, the City served Mr. Stillman with the
following Requests for Production:
5. The original or copy (wherein the original is not
available) of all of the plaintiff's state and federal
income tax returns filed with any taxing authority, including
all W-2s forms and 1099 forms and schedules for the past five
(5) years. . . .
18. Any and all exhibits which plaintiff intends to offer or
use at the trial at the above-captioned matter, which request
is to include items whether real, photographic or
documentary, which plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel
intend to offer at trial.
[Filing No. 82 at 2.] On November 16, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge entered a Case Management Plan
(“CMP”), setting forth discovery
deadlines to facilitate the efficient and orderly development
of this matter. [Filing No. 16.] In relevant part,
the CMP provided that damages discovery “shall be
completed by December 14, 2018.” [Filing No. 16 at
point, Mr. Stillman answered an interrogatory explaining that
he did not have the tax documents and would supplement his
production upon receipt. But Mr. Stillman never answered
Request 5 for tax returns. Rather, the only information the
City received concerning Mr. Stillman's earnings from his
work after he was terminated by the City came from nonparty
productions and Mr. Stillman's April 2018 deposition.
February 20, 2019, the Court scheduled the final pretrial
conference in this matter and ordered the parties to file a
trial exhibit list by March 1, 2019, “listing only the
exhibits the party anticipates actually presenting at
trial.” [Filing No. 58 at 2.] The Order
further provided that, “[a]bsent consent of the
opposing party, no exhibit that has not been previously
listed may be included.” [Filing No. 58 at 2.]
Pursuant to this Order, Mr. Stillman filed his trial exhibit
list on March 1, 2019, [Filing No. 69], and the City
duly objected to certain exhibits on March 8, 2019,
[Filing No. 72]. Also on March 8, after the City had
properly filed its objections to Mr. Stillman's trial
exhibit list, and without seeking or obtaining leave of
Court, Mr. Stillman filed a new, Amended Final Exhibit List.
[Filing No. 77.] This new exhibit list, filed
without consent of opposing counsel, listed the following
27. Plaintiff's tax transcripts for the years 2013
28. Plaintiff's W-2 for 2018
29. Plaintiff's Earnings Statement ...