Search the Community

i recently am working on a paper which is related to civil procedure Rule 37 failure to make disclosure in discovery (you could expect the rule at the end of this message). The thing is, my teacher told me to find 'parties make an agreement on not submitting evidence which makes evidence losing the possibility to be used in the court'. but I can't find any rules or cases or papers about it. I find motion in limine, but my friend said that the motion will be decided by the judge and normally will be introduced by only one party which is not based on two parties' agreement, so she thought this was not the thing that the teacher wanted. Do you know anything about two parties making an agreement on not submitting evidence in discovery which makes the evidence becoming the evidence not disclosed in discovery and losing the validity to be introduced in the trial? If you know, the legal term, based on that i could find papers, cases or rules that will be the best. Thank you so much for your attention. Looking forward to your reply. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE V. DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERYRule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions(c) Failure to Disclose, to Supplement an Earlier Response, or to Admit.(1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard:(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure;(B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)—(vi).

Please help! We own a small property of land (a parking lot) in LA, California but we live in Washington and haven't been to CA for years. We got recently sued for "violation of the unhurt civil rights act, civil code section 51" and "pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474." According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were unable to park because it lacked a 192-inch-wide van-accessible handicap spot and adjacent access aisle and because of that, they experienced difficulty in a place of public accommodation. We are being sued for no less than $8,000 in damages, fees at rate no less then $400, costs, and prejudgement interest! I really don't think this is fair and we really don't have the money to pay for that! Please give us some legal advice!