ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on counterclaim defendants Job's Daughters International ("JDI") and Rod Reid's "Motion for Summary Judgment" on the intentional interference with contractual relations, interference with business expectancy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims asserted against them by defendant Heidi Yoast. Dkt. # 51. JDI and Reid also seek dismissal of "any claim for attorney's fees, with prejudice." Dkt. # 51 at 10.
As set forth in her pleading, Yoast's counterclaims are based almost entirely on allegations that Shelly Cole, a member of JDI's leadership team, publicly stated at a 2016 conference that Yoast was infringing JDI's trademarks, that JDI had sent Yoast several cease and desist letters, and that JDI members should not purchase Yoast's products. Yoast alleges that JDI and Reid, a former member of JDI's Board of Trustees, are liable for these comments. The only conduct directly attributed to JDI and Reid in the pleading is that they "continue to make and maintain false and defamatory statements related to Yoast and her graphic design business." Dkt. # 19 at ¶ 36.
Cole was originally named as a counterclaim defendant, but the Court dismissed the claims asserted against her based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. In the context of that order, dated January 5, 2018, the Court noted that much of the evidence submitted by Yoast in support of her counterclaims, including text messages, email strings, and Facebook printouts recounting what Cole said at the conference, was not admissible for the purpose of establishing the truth of the non-party statements made therein. Dkt. # 40 at 3 n.2. The Court declines to reconsider that ruling and again strikes the hearsay evidence regarding out-of-court statements made by Leslie Hoglund.
JDI and Reid moved for summary judgment based on (1) the fact that Yoast had not disclosed any admissible evidence to contradict Cole's declaration that she did not refer to Heidi Yoast by name or by title, did not state that Yoast was using JDI's trademarks without permission or that JDI had sent cease and desist letters to Yoast, and did not instruct members to refrain from buying product from Yoast at the 2016 conference (Dkt. # 53)
The Court finds that these disclosures were untimely.
Yoast's discovery failures are not harmless in that they prevented JDI and Reid from testing the knowledge and veracity of her new witnesses and meeting the substance of the new claim against Reid. Although the parties requested, and the Court granted, a two week extension of the remaining pre-trial deadlines (Dkt. # 77), this matter will be scheduled for trial as soon as possible at the pretrial conference on May 31, 2018. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the case management order issued in this case are designed to avoid trials by ambush and the unfairness that attends them. JDI and Reid will not be forced to defend new claims and/or rebut new evidence without the benefit of discovery.
Because Yoast's evidence in support of her counterclaims is inadmissible under Rule 37(c)(1), JDI and Reid's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaims (Dkt. # 51) is GRANTED. Any claim for attorney's fees arising from those counterclaims is also DISMISSED.
The Court has not considered plaintiff's unauthorized statement of undisputed facts (Dkt. # 55-1).