Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Vanguard Prods. Group, Inc., No. 02 C 3767, 2007 WL 781253 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2007) (Cole, Mag. J.).
Judge Cole denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude two defense witnesses as a Rule 37 sanction for failing to properly disclose the witnesses. During the discovery process, defendants identified two witnesses, through declarations signed by the witnesses, as having knowledge of a 35 USC Section 102(b) on sale bar. Although defendants provided plaintiff the witnesses’ declarations and otherwise identified the witnesses to plaintiff, defendants failed to add the witnesses to their respective Rule 26 disclosures and they failed to supplement their respective responses to plaintiff’s interrogatory seeking details of all of defendants’ invalidity defenses. Plaintiff argued that these failures led to plaintiff’s decision not to depose the witnesses and that defendants’ should be barred from relying upon the witnesses for failure to update their Rule 26 disclosures and interrogatory responses. The Court, however, held that while nondisclosure would generally result in exclusion, exclusion was not warranted in the instant case because defendants did disclose the witnesses in writing. As a result, "[s]upplementation would have availed nothing required by the [Federal] Rules and was thus unnecessary."