United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
627 F.3d 22 (2010)
David Harriman (plaintiff) was arrested and brought to jail in October 2006. Harriman was extremely intoxicated at the time. A few hours after arriving at the jail, Harriman was transported to the hospital. What happened to him in the interim was disputed. According to correctional officers, Harriman was raving in his cell just after 10 p.m. when he fell and hit his head. Officers entered the cell and saw Harriman in a puddle of his own urine. Harriman then had two seizures. Around 10:20, an ambulance was called. When it arrived, an EMT named Jenny Sheriff attended to Harriman. Harriman’s recollections from the night were few: he recalled “hollering”; “flashes of light”; seeing his wife’s cousin, Foster Kane, who was also being held at the jail; and the smell of “urine mixed with cleaning fluid.” Contending that officers had beaten him in jail, leaving him with a long-term brain injury, Harriman sued Hancock County, the sheriff, and several correctional officers (collectively, defendants) in a federal district court in April 2008. A magistrate judge set scheduling dates: initial disclosures were due July 30, 2008; discovery was to close December 3, 2008; dispositive motions were due January 15, 2009. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on its due date. On February 17, 2009, two days before Harriman’s response to the motion was due, his attorney submitted a “supplemental” initial disclosure identifying Kane and Sheriff as additional persons likely to have discoverable information. This was not the first time that Harriman had missed a deadline. Here, he claimed that Kane and Sheriff were only recently located, through a private investigator hired on January 9, 2009. Harriman responded to defendants’ summary judgment motion, relying on affidavits of Kane and Sheriff that sharply contrasted with defendants’ version of events. Defendants moved to strike the affidavits. The magistrate ruled in their favor, precluding Harriman from using the affidavits and recommending that summary judgment be granted to defendants. The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendations and granted summary judgment. Harriman appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Howard, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.