Brief Fact Summary.
Conrad Chalick (Chalick) sought to join Dr. Burns to a complaint against Cooper Hospital because one of the defendants identified Dr. Burns as having relevant information regarding the death of Chalick’s son.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Under rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is required to disclose the name, contact information, and subject of information of parties likely to have discoverable information.
Moreover, this Court has repeatedly stated outright that unexcused delay unaccompanied by real detriment to the defendant or to the judiciary does not constitute undue delay.View Full Point of Law
Conrad Chalick (Chalick) filed suit against Cooper Hospital (Cooper), University Radiology Services, and four doctors for the death of his son. The defendants identified Dr. Burns as having knowledge relevant to Chalick’s son’s death and after hearing the testimony of one of the defendants; Chalick amended the complaint to add Chalick as a defendant to the suit. Cooper argued that Dr. Burns could not be added to the complaint because the statute of limitations had run.
Whether the name and contact information of parties likely to have discoverable information is required to be disclosed?
.Yes. Cooper did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) because they failed to include Dr. Burns’ contact information alongside the basis of his knowledge. Cooper will face sanctions as a result, with Dr. Burns being added as a defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(a) requires the initial disclosure of a party’s name, phone number, and address if they are likely to have discoverable information. Initial disclosures also should include the subject of the discoverable information. Failure to comply with FRCP 26(a) will result in sanctions under FRCP 37.