ORDER GRANTING SANCTIONS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty as subrogee for Catherine Robinson ("State Farm")'s Motion to Exclude John Weiss and Sanctions, Dkt. #58, and the supplemental briefing requested by the Court, Dkts. #77 and #78. The Court stated in its May 31, 2017, Order:
Dkt. #76 at 5-6. The Court thus requested supplemental briefing from the parties solely on the issue of how to craft an appropriate sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). Id. at 6.
State Farm argues that Defendants "have impeded State Farm's ability to prove that the heating pad was defectively designed and constructed and that such defects proximately caused the fire," and that an appropriate sanction would be a judicial declaration that the heating pad at issue was defectively designed and constructed and proximately caused the fire. Dkt. #77 at 1-2. State Farm argues that both parts of this sanction are necessary because "[i]f there is a determination that the heating pad was defectively designed and constructed, but no judicial determination that such defects proximately caused the fire, then State Farm would be hobbled, and Defendants would benefit, by non-production of the documents." Id. at 2. In the alternative, State Farm proposes a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) preventing Defendants from offering any evidence as to how the heating pad was designed or constructed, preventing Defendants from cross examining State Farm's expert on these topics, and instructing the jury that they may draw an adverse inference from Defendants' violation of the discovery order. Id. at 3-5. State Farm proposes the following instruction be given by the Court:
Id. at 5.
Defendants request that the appropriate sanction should be that Plaintiff's expert "be permitted to supplement or amend their reports." Dkt. #78 at 3. Defendants argue that Plaintiff now has all the information that Defendants have relied upon. Id. According to Defendants, this proposed sanction "effectively cures any prejudice to Plaintiff and permits this matter to proceed to trial on the merits." Id. at 4.
The Court is not inclined to follow Defendants' recommended sanction. First, because it is not a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii) as requested by the Court. Second, because it is not a sanction that deters future behavior. Even if the prejudice to State Farm could be cured at this point, allowing Defendants to go forward in this case without at least a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii) would effectively promote similar discovery violations in the future. There must be consequences for violating discovery orders.
The Court has considered the sanctions proposed by State Farm, and finds that the recommended sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) is appropriate.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that the following sanction will be imposed on Defendants: