Kien v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.

— 1 — 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — 4 Maxime Kien, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01153-CDS-EJY 5 Plaintiffs Order Granting Defendant’s Motion in limine and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to 6 v. Reopen Discovery Dates 7 Allied Van Lines, Inc. [ECF Nos. 19, 20] 8 Defendant — 9 — 10 Plaintiffs Maxime Kien and Jennifer Kien bring this action against defendant Allied Van 11 Lines, Inc., alleging a violation of the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, — 12 — 49 U.S.C. § 14706 . Am. compl., ECF No. 8. On June 18, 2025, Allied Van Lines filed a motion in 13 limine to exclude evidence and witnesses due to the plaintiffs’ discovery noncompliance. Mot., 14 ECF No. 19. 15 In the motion in limine, Allied Van Lines states that the plaintiffs have “failed to 16 participate in discovery, as they did not serve initial disclosures, failed to appear for their 17 depositions, and did not respond to requests for production or interrogatories.” ECF No. 19 at 2. 18 Thus, Allied Van Lines concludes that the plaintiffs must be precluded from introducing 19 evidence at trial regarding their claimed damages. Id. at 4 . 20 In the plaintiffs’ response, they oppose the motion in limine1 and simultaneously request 21 that I re-open the discovery dates “so that this case may be heard on the merits.” Resp., ECF No. 22 20. The response states: “Counsel for Plaintiffs asks this Court and the Defendant to show mercy 23 on counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff was having personal and family problems during the discovery 24 phase that was ordered by this Court.” Id. at 2 . Counsel for plaintiffs further explains that the 25 delay in complying with the discovery deadlines “was caused by mental health issues namely — 26 — 1 The motion is fully briefed. See Reply, ECF No. 22. 1 depression and stress related to moving out of the family home, and the breakup of his family 2 unit.” Id. at 3 . 3 I. Discussion 4 District courts have “broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 5 litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.” Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th 6 Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). To 7 demonstrate a modification of the discovery scheduling order is warranted, the moving party 8 must demonstrate good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., — 9 — 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The “good cause” requirement primarily considers the 10 diligence of the party seeking the extension. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 . “If that party was not 11 diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 12 Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires that “a party must, without awaiting 13 a discovery request” provide an opposing party with certain initial disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 26(a)(1)(A). If a party fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the party is not 15 allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at 16 trial, unless the failure to do so was substantially justified or harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 17 The burden is on the party facing exclusion to prove the delay was justified or harmless. Yeti by 18 Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 , 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit has made 19 clear that “[t]he district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 20 litigation.” Continental Lab. Prods., Inc. v. Medax Int’l., Inc., 195 F.R.D. 675, 677 (S.D. Cal. 2000) 21 (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). And, if a party, under Rule 22 37, seeks to preclude the introduction of evidence which amounts to dismissal of a claim, when 23 the court conducts its harmlessness inquiry under Rule 37, the court must make a finding of 24 willfulness or bad faith. Perry v. Brown, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220596 , at *9 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 25 2019) (citing R&R Sails Inc. v. Ins Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 2012)). — 26 — 1 Allied Van Lines seeks to exclude all evidence related to damages, and damages are a 2 required element of the plaintiffs’ claim, meaning if I grant the defendant’s motion in limine, it 3 will be tantamount to dismissal of the claim. See Newens v. Orna Servs., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4 10685 , at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2002) (explaining that a plaintiff must allege three elements to 5 establish a prima facie case of a violation of the Carmack Amendment: (1) delivery of the goods 6 to the initial carrier in good condition; (2) damage of the goods before delivery to their final 7 destination; and (3) the amount in damages (emphasis added)). Therefore, when conducting 8 the “harmlessness inquiry required under Rule 37(c)(1),” I may only preclude introduction of the 9 evidence if the plaintiffs’ failure to engage in the discovery process was willful or in bad faith. 10 R&R Sails Inc., 673 F.3d at 1247 . 11 Allied Van Lines’ motion intersects with the plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery. This 12 court is undoubtedly empathetic to plaintiffs’ counsel’s personal challenges, but the court must 13 evaluate the record and pending motions in accordance with the rules and applicable authority. 14 The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 are that “a party must, without awaiting 15 a discovery request” provide an opposing party with certain initial disclosures, and if a party 16 fails to comply, then that party is not allowed to use that information without demonstrating 17 the failure was substantially justified or harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 37(c)(1). 19 The record supports that the plaintiffs’ failure to engage in discovery was not done in 20 bad faith. The court recognizes that suffering a mental health crisis can be overwhelming and 21 all-consuming. Unfortunately, however, the court does find that plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to 22 engage in discovery was willful, therefore neither justified nor harmless. As a threshold matter, 23 the plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery violates this district’s Local Rules. See LR IC 2-2(b) 24 (“For each type of relief requested or purpose of the document, a separate document must be 25 filed and a separate event must be selected for that document.”). While a violation of the Local 26 Rules isn’t the crux of the issue here, it highlights the effect of plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to 1 engage in discovery. The court is left bewildered by the fact that even after Allied Van Lines filed 2 its motion in limine, plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file a motion for relief related to discovery. 3 Plaintiffs’ counsel also provides no explanation as to why he did not reach out to his colleagues 4 for help. Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel is not a solo practitioner; his law firm employs six other 5 lawyers. Given that plaintiffs’ counsel is required to provide diligent representation to his 6 client,2 it is unclear to this court why plaintiffs’ counsel did not seek assistance in managing this 7 case so that he could focus on his mental health. Further evincing of plaintiffs’ counsel’s willful 8 failure to participate in discovery is the fact that even after receiving deposition notices and 9 requests for production, dated over six months ago, he failed to participate. See Dep. notice, 10 Def.’s Ex. A, ECF No. 19-1 at 4; Req. for produc., Def.’s Ex. B, ECF No. 19-2. Finally, it has been 11 nine months since the parties filed their stipulated discovery plan and scheduling order. See 12 Stip., ECF No. 15. Plaintiffs’ counsel had ample time to either prepare discovery or reach out to 13 opposing counsel or this court for additional time once he realized he was struggling to stay on 14 top of deadlines but failed to do so. Consequently, the record leaves this court with no option 15 but to find willful conduct on behalf of plaintiffs’ counsel, so pursuant to Rule 37, Allied Van 16 Lines’ motion in limine is granted. Plaintiffs are precluded from introducing evidence at trial 17 related to damages. Because I grant the motion in limine, and for the same reasons as described 18 above, I deny the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the discovery deadlines.3 — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — 2 See Nevada Rule of Pro. Conduct 1.3. 24 3 In determining whether to re-open discovery, courts consider: (1) whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, (4) whether the 25 moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district 26 court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017). III. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Allied Van Lines’ motion in limine [ECF No. 19] is 3], GRANTED.+ 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery [ECF No. 20] is DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, given there is a pending motion for summary 7|| judgment (ECF No. 18), the parties are required to provide supplemental briefing, no later than August 29, 2025, on how this order affects the motion fo Sukmmary judgment. 9 Dated: August 15, 2025 ( 10 Lha-—— Cristing’D: Si Il U teal States District Judge 12 [ — 13 — — 14 — — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — * Allied Van Lines alludes to a request that the court preclude plaintiffs’ claims for attorney’s fees. See ECF No. 19 at 2. However, Allied Van Lines does not provide meaningful argument as to how it is entitled to this request, so the extent this request was included in their motion in limine, it is denied without prejudice.