Perry v. Durborow et al, No. 4:2015cv00095 - Document 85 (N.D. Okla. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 59 Motion to Strike (tjc, Dpty Clk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Perry v. Durborow et al Doc. 85 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TAUNYA PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TERRY DURBOROW, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 15-CV-95-CVE-FHM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants’ Opposed Motion and Brief to Strike Witness, [Dkt. 59], is before the court for decision. Plaintiffs filed a response, [Dkt. 68], and Defendants filed a reply, [Dkt. 69]. This motion concerns Defendants’ efforts to contact witnesses listed by the Plaintiffs and requires the court to determine when a party must disclose the addresses and telephone numbers of its witnesses or be precluded from calling the witnesses at trial. Plaintiffs listed their witnesses pursuant to the Scheduling Order, [Dkt. 58], and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) and included addresses and telephone numbers. Defendants’ attorney advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that the addresses and telephone numbers for six of the witnesses were inaccurate or incomplete. Plaintiffs’ attorney responded that he had provided the best contact information he had; that he would update the information if better information became available; and encouraged Defendants to also attempt to locate the witnesses. Apparently unable to locate the witnesses, Defendants seek to have the witnesses stricken contending that Plaintiffs had an obligation to provide accurate addresses and telephone numbers. Dockets.Justia.com Although Defendants desire that Plaintiffs be required to provide accurate addresses and telephone numbers for Plaintiffs’ witnesses before the discovery deadline is understandable, neither the Scheduling Order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure support Defendants’ motion to strike the witnesses at this time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires that addresses and telephone numbers for witnesses be provided if they are known and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) imposes a duty to timely supplement the addresses and telephone numbers. Accepting Plaintiffs’ attorney’s statement that he provided the best information he had, Plaintiffs have complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i) on the other hand, requires a party to provide the addresses and telephone numbers of its witnesses in its Pretrial Disclosures. But the Pretrial Disclosures are not due until thirty days before trial or as ordered by the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B). Under the Scheduling Order the date for Pretrial Disclosures is September 12, 2016. Thus, under the Scheduling Order and the Rules, Plaintiffs have until September 12, 2016 to provide the addresses and telephone numbers of their witnesses, with an obligation to timely supplement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) if the information becomes available before that date. Defendants’ motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice. SO ORDERED this 16th day of August, 2016. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
