The District Court significantly curtailed the plaintiffs’ trial evidence in ruling on the City’s motion to strike. Although the plaintiffs conceded that nine of their witnesses had not been disclosed, they attempted to salvage seven others, pointing to their document production as sufficient disclosure. Slip. op. at 1-2. The document production did not disclose the name, address, and telephone of these individuals as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i), and the lack of disclosure prejudiced the City by precluding the taking these witness’ depositions; therefore, the District Court struck all 16 witnesses. Id. at 2.
The District Court did not make any categorical ruling on the disputed exhibits: With respect to 11 exhibits allegedly not disclosed, the District Court deferred assessment of the four factors outlined in Tex. A&M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2003); it struck three newspaper articles because they were hearsay and likely to cause juror confusion; and it deferred ruling on a tax form where a pre-trial admissibility determination was not practicable. Slip. op. at 2-3.