Brun v. Safety Holdings Incorporated

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Armand Brun,
Plaintiff,
v.
Safety Holdings Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-24-03482-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Armand Brun’s motion for leave to file late his Rule
26(a)(3)(A) disclosures, (Doc. 19). Defendant Safety Holdings Incorporated (“Safety
Holdings”) does not oppose the motion and has filed a Rule 26(a)(3)(A) disclosure
statement of its own, (Doc. 18). Brun’s motion will be denied, Safety Holdings’s
disclosure statement will be stricken, and the Court will take this opportunity to clarify its
Case Management Order (“scheduling order”).
Pursuant to the scheduling order, Rule 26(a)(3)(A) disclosures shall be completed
by the fact discovery deadline, (Doc. 17 at 2), but such disclosures shall be filed “in the
Joint Proposed Pretrial Order,” (Id. at 4). There is thus no requirement that the parties file
Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures before the close of discovery because those disclosures
are satisfied by filing the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. (Doc. 17 at 4.) As a practical
matter, the parties’ obligations under Rule 26(e)(1)—to supplement 26(a) disclosures and
responses to discovery requests—ensure that all exhibits and witnesses that may be offered
at trial are disclosed before the close of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Indeed,
Case 2:24-cv-03482-SHD Document 21 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the scheduling order clarifies that if a party violates Rule 26(e)(1), or “attempt[s] to include
any witnesses or exhibits in the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order that were not previously
disclosed prior to the discovery deadline,” such evidence may be excluded at trial or other
sanctions imposed. (Doc. 17 at 4.)
In short, neither party was required to file a Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosure before
the close of discovery. Brun’s motion for leave to file such disclosures late is therefore
premature, as is Safety Holdings’ disclosure statement.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Brun’s Consent Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff’s
Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures After Deadline (Doc. 19) as premature.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Safety Holdings’ Statement of 26(a)(3)
Disclosures (Doc. 18).
Dated this 24th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-03482-SHD Document 21 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 2