Collins v. U.S.

20 Citing cases

  1. Pitts v. HP Pelzer Auto. Sys., Inc.

    CV 118-012 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 10, 2019)

    Compare Hicks v. Avery Drei, LLC, 654 F.3d 739, 745 (7th Cir. 2011) (not automatic); Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284, 298 (2d Cir. 2006) (same); Roberts ex rel. Johnson v. Galen of Va., Inc., 325 F.3d 776, 783-84 (6th Cir. 2003) (same), with Vanderberg v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., 906 F.3d 698, 707 (8th Cir. 2018) (automatic absent substantial justification or harmlessness); Hoyle v. Freiqhtliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321, 329 (4th Cir. 2011) (same); Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 827 (9th Cir. 2011) (same), and Wilson v. Bradlees of New England, Inc., 250 F.3d 10, 20-21 (1st Cir. 2001) ("near automatic exclusion"). Compare Braggs v. Dunn, No. 2:14cv601-MHT, 2017 WL 659169, at *9 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 17, 2017)(not automatic); In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 4635729, at *16 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 3, 2015) (same); Collins v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5 n.7 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010) (same); Rhodes v. Davis, No. 08-0523-CG-C, 2010 WL 4260048, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2010) (same); Clarke v. Schofield, No. 5:06-CV-403 (CAR), 2009 WL 10674468, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2009) (same); Vaughn v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 1337-38 (S.D. Ga. 2008) (same), and Alfaro v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., No. 6:05-cv-1639-Orl-28DAB, 2007 WL 9723123, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2007) (concluding sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) are automatic but court has discretion to fashion appropriate sanction under the Rule), with Kantor v. Corizon LLC, No. 3:16-cv-449-RV-GRJ, 2018 WL 1702056, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2018) (automatic absent substantial justification or harmlessness); Fuller v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC, No. 16-00363-KD-M, 2017 WL 3098104, at *2 (S.D. Ala. July 19, 2017) (same); Timber Pines Plaza, LLC v. Kinsale Ins. Co., 192 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1291 (M.D. Fla 2016) (same); Leaks v. Target Corp., No. CV414-106, 2015 WL 4092450, at *4 (S.D. Ga. July 6, 2015) (same); Young v.

  2. Strong v. City of Naples

    2:22-cv-318-KCD (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2023)

    . While at least one court has dismissed this language as dicta, see Harris Corp. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., No. 611CV618ORL41KRS, 2015 WL 12830468, at *2 n.3 (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2015), others have relied on it, see, e.g., Herbold v. Cottam, No. 8:14-CV-264-T-36MAP, 2016 WL 7367176, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2016); Water v. HDR Eng'g, Inc., No. 8:08-CV-2446-T-27TBM, 2011 WL 13176484, at *7 n.15, 9 (M.D. Fla. May 11, 2011); Collins v. United States, No. 3:08-CV-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010). This split tracks a similar disagreement among the Circuit Courts.

  3. Wherevertv, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC

    2:18-cv-529-WJF-NPM (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2023)

    Collins v. United States, No. 3:08-CV-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the Court finds that Mr. Elam's statements regarding PX169 constitute a proper supplement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) and are not due to be stricken for untimeliness.

  4. A.M. v. Bayfront HMA Med. Ctr.

    8:18-cv-2398-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2022)

    ; Collins v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010) (noting that courts vastly prefer to decide cases on their merits)

  5. Seven Stars on the Hudson Corp. v. MDG Powerline Holdings, LLC

    No. 22-CIV-60299-RAR (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    When a court strikes critical evidence as a sanction, such exclusion can “effect a dismissal,” and a lesser penalty may be appropriate. Collins v. U.S., No. 3:08-cv-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *3, *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010). But the only purpose of a sham affidavit is to defeat summary judgment-it follows that its exclusion would result in an unfavorable result for its proponent.

  6. Reese v. CSX Transp., Inc.

    CV 118-215 (S.D. Ga. Sep. 24, 2020)   Cited 7 times

    As often stated, courts in the Eleventh Circuit "have a strong preference for deciding cases on the merits." Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2014); accord Collins v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010). Accordingly, courts are hesitant to turn a blind eye to the Eleventh Circuit's overarching goal for resolving litigation.

  7. Leigh v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.

    Case No.: 8:19-cv-267-T-60AAS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, "'[t]he Court vastly prefers to decide cases on their merits,'" rather than excluding evidence. Collins v. United States, 3:08-cv-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010) (citation omitted). The July hydrostatic test supplements Alvarez's original report.

  8. In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust

    329 F.R.D. 336 (M.D. Fla. 2018)   Cited 19 times
    Recognizing that courts "regularly admit expert testimony that certain conduct or evidence is ‘consistent with a finding that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices’ " and collecting cases (quoting In re Delta/Airtrain Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation , 245 F. Supp. 3d 1343, 1359 (N.D. Ga. 2017) )

    "[U]nder Rule 37, the Court has discretion to sanction a party who fails to provide information required by Rule 26." Collins v. United States, No. 3:08-cv-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010) (citing Parrish v. Freightliner, LLC, 471 F.Supp.2d 1262, 1268 (M.D. Fla. 2006) ). "The main purpose underlying the sanctions in Rule 37(c)(1) is to prevent surprise and prejudice to the opposing party."

  9. Seascape Aquarium, Inc. v. Associated Diversified Servs., Inc.

    Case No: 8:17-cv-2137-T-17JSS (M.D. Fla. Jun. 29, 2018)

    However, "[t]he evidentiary exclusion sanction is not necessarily 'automatic,' even in the absence of substantial justification and harmlessness, because Rule 37(c)(1) provides that a court may impose other appropriate sanctions '[i]n addition to or instead of this sanction.'" Collins v. United States, No. 3:08-CV-923-J-32JRK, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5, n.7 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)) (citing Prieto v. Malgor, 361 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir. 2004)). The court has broad discretion in deciding whether a failure to disclose evidence is substantially justified or harmless under Rule 37(c)(1).

  10. Finch v. Owners Ins. Co.

    CV 616-169 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    This caution is magnified when exclusion would lead to dismissal. See, e.g., Collins v. United States, 2010 WL 4643279, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010); Durden, 2008 WL 11318338, at *6 (refusing to exclude testimony of plaintiff's only expert despite plaintiff's failure to produce an expert witness report before the close of discovery). Mr. Gregory's testimony is the only evidence Plaintiff has to demonstrate the source of the water damage, which is an essential part of Plaintiff's complaint.