The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge
ORDER Re: Defendant's Motion , in Limine No. 1 Defendant's Motion , in Limine No. 2 and Defendant's Motion  in Limine No. 3
Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1 , Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2 , and Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3  were set for hearing on December 20, 2010. Having taken the matters under submission on December 13, 2010, and having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to these Motions, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence of Plaintiff's alleged damages.
I. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff's Alleged Damages
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) states, in relevant part:
[A] party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties: (iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party--who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) states that if a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a), "the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence ... at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Under Rule 37, the party facing sanctions therefore has the burden of showing that a failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was "substantially justified or harmless." Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001). The District Courts have broad discretion in imposing discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Ritchie v. United States, 451 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2006).
Defendant DHS argues that any introduction of evidence of Plaintiff's alleged damages at trial should be excluded because Plaintiff has failed to provide the Defendant with the required calculation of damages as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). The Court DENIES DHS's Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence of Plaintiff's alleged damages.
The Court finds that while Plaintiff failed to fully meet his disclosure requirements, Plaintiff has substantially justified this failure. The Court finds that Plaintiff substantially complied with his Rule 26 disclosure obligations by identifying to the Defendant the formula he relied upon in calculating his loss and providing to Defendant DHS the data regarding his interim earnings.
Moreover, Plaintiff is not seeking monetary damages from Defendant DHS, rather, Plaintiff seeks equitable relief from the Court in the form of retroactive reinstatement in the event that he is successful in his age discrimination claim. Given that Plaintiff repeatedly requested from Defendant DHS data necessary to compute a portion of his financial loss calculations, that Defendant was on notice about Plaintiff's damages theory, and that Plaintiff seeks no monetary damages but rather retroactive reinstatement, the Court finds that Plaintiff's untimely disclosure of his damages calculation was ...