## Facts

- David Harriman was arrested in October 2006 after a disturbance at a hospital; the arresting trooper believed Harriman was intoxicated and violating a condition barring alcohol use.
- Harriman resisted arrest, was loud and combative, and was transported to the Hancock County Jail.
- During a weekend detention, Harriman behaved belligerently, was found in a puddle of urine, and experienced at least two seizures requiring responses by jail staff and paramedics.
- Harriman later alleged that corrections officers beat him and caused a lasting brain injury; the defendants asserted his injuries resulted from falls and medical events, not officer force.
- Harriman reported remembering virtually nothing from the weekend, limiting his ability to provide direct testimony about what occurred.
- Harriman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law theories, including claims tied to alleged excessive force and misconduct during detention.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37(c)(1) by excluding affidavits from two witnesses identified only in a late supplemental disclosure after a pattern of missed deadlines.
2. Whether, after exclusion of those affidavits, the remaining record created a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment on Harriman’s federal and state claims.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed.
- The district court acted within its discretion in precluding the late-disclosed witness affidavits under Rule 37(c)(1) because the disclosure violation was not substantially justified and was not harmless, particularly given repeated deadline failures.
- With the affidavits excluded, Harriman lacked sufficient admissible evidence to create a triable dispute; summary judgment for defendants on all claims was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 26(a) and Rule 26(e) require timely disclosure and timely supplementation of individuals likely to have discoverable information.
- Under Rule 37(c)(1), an undisclosed witness or information is barred from use to supply evidence unless the failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless.
- In reviewing preclusion under Rule 37(c)(1), relevant considerations include litigation history and compliance with scheduling orders, the proponent’s need for the evidence, the adequacy of the explanation for delay, and prejudice to the opposing party and case management.
- A party’s strong need for late-disclosed evidence does not preclude exclusion when the delay lacks substantial justification and would prejudice the opponent or disrupt the schedule.
- When properly excluded evidence is central to a claim, summary judgment may follow if the remaining admissible record cannot show a genuine dispute of material fact.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that excluding late-disclosed affidavits was a permissible Rule 37(c)(1) sanction in light of unjustified delay and repeated noncompliance, and that without those affidavits the plaintiff could not meet his evidentiary burden to proceed to trial, requiring affirmance of summary judgment.


Harriman v. Hancock County, 627 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010)