troduction of expert testi-mony as a sanction against appellants' former counsel for fail-ure to disclose damage evidence and for being late disclosingexperts. Upon remand, the district court denied appellants'request that it vacate its order.The initial Preclusion Order was issued on August 9, 1993as a sanction against appellants' former counsel. At that time,counsel's failure to comply with discovery rules potentiallyprejudiced Host and Paramount's ability to prepare ade-quately for trial. Today, that is not so. Both parties now haveample opportunity to begin the expert disclosure procedureanew.Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990),requires us to determine whether a sanction is proper under afive-factor test analyzing: 1) the public's interest in expedi-tious resolution of litigation; 2) the court's need to manage itsdocket; 3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; 4) the publicpolicy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 5) theavailability of less drastic sanctions. We conclude that underthis test, the Preclusion Order is no longer proper. Less drasticsanctions are available and the defendants are no longer preju-diced by the actions of appellants' former counsel. We grantappellants' request to vacate the Preclusion Order uponremand. However, the district court, may, in its discretion,impose reasonable monetary sanctions upon appellants' for-mer counsel for failure to comply with discovery rules.F. Attorney's FeesBecause we reverse the grant of summary judgment underCal. Civ. Code S 3344, we reverse the grant of attorney's feesto Host and Paramount and deny their requests for attorney'sfees on appeal. 12367IV. CONCLUSIONThe grant of summary judgment is reversed and the case isremanded to the district court for trial. The admission of thesurvey evidence should be reconsidered at trial. The Preclu-sion Order is vacated and appropriate sanctions other thanpreclusion may be cons...
