Full opinion text
ORDER ARCARA, Chief Judge. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on February 3, 2004. On August 12, 2004, defendants Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Development Consortium, Inc., Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Investment Board, Inc., James Finamore, Eugene F. Bagen, James F. Bratek, and Ronald J. Baia (“Workforce Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 13) and on August 17, defendants Joel A. Giambra and Carl J. Calabrese (“County Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 20). On March 22, 2005, both the Workforce Defendants and the County Defendants filed motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 30 and 34), and in June 2005, the County Defendants and the Workforce Defendants filed motions to strike (Doc Nos. 46 and 47). On September 29, 2005, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a combined Decision and Order and Report and Recommendation, where he: (1) recommended that the Workforce Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint as time-barred should be denied (Doc. No. 13); (2) recommended that the Workforce Defendants’ (Doc. No. 30) and the County Defendants’ (Doc. No. 34) motions for summary judgment be granted as to plaintiffs claim for punitive damages but denied in all other respects; and (3) denied the motions to strike filed by the County Defendants (Doc. No. 46) and the Workforce Defendants (Doc. No. 47). Both the County Defendants and the Workforce Defendants filed objections to the Decision and Order and Report and Recommendation, and plaintiff filed a response thereto. Oral argument on the objections was held on December 7, 2005. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions and hearing' argument from the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court “may reconsider any pretrial matter under this [section] where it has been shown that the magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” The Court has reviewed defendants’ objections and Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order. Upon such review and after hearing argument from counsel, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. ■ Accordingly, the Court affirms the Decision and Order. Further, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Foschio’s Report and Recommendation, the Court hereby: (1) denies the Workforce Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 13) to dismiss the Complaint as time-barred; (2) grants the Defendants’ motions, for summary judgment as to plaintiffs punitive damages claim, but denies the motions for summary judgment (Docs. No. 30 and 34) in all other respects. The parties shall appear in' Court on May 3, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., for a meeting to set a trial date. IT IS SO ORDERED. DECISION and ORDER REPORT and RECOMMENDATION FOSCHIO, United States Magistrate Judge. JURISDICTION This action was referred to the undersigned by Honorable Richard J. Arcara on February 3, 2004, for all pretrial matters including preparation of a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. The matter is presently before the court on a motion (Doc. No. 13) filed by Defendants Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Development Consortium, Inc., Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Investment Board, Inc., James Finamore, Eugene F. Bagen, James F. Bratek, and Ronald J. Baia on August 12, 2004 seeking to dismiss the Complaint, a motion (Doc. No. 20), filed by Defendants Joel A. Giambra and Carl J. Calabrese on August 17, 2004, to join in the motion to dismiss, on motions for summary judgment (Doc.. Nos. 30 and. 34), filed on March 22, 2005, respectively by Defendants Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Development Consortium, Inc., Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Investment Board, Inc., .James Finamore, Eugene F. Bagen, James F. Bratek, and Ronald J. Baia, and by Defendants Joel A. Giambra and Carl J. Cala-brese, and on motions to strike filed by the County Defendants on June 20, 2005 (Doc. No. 46), and by the Workforce Defendants on June 21, 2005 (Doc. No. 47). BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Maureen Krause (“Krause”), commenced this action on September 29, 2003, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unlawful employment practice by Defendants. In particular, Krause claims that Defendants, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, ■ discriminated against her based on Krause’s political beliefs and associations when Krause was not hired for a position with the Greater Buffalo Works (“GBW”) program, previously administered by the now defunct Buffalo and Erie County Private Industry Council (“PIC”). Defendants to this action include Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Development Consortium, Inc. (“WDC”), Buffalo and Erie County Workforce Investment Board, Inc. (“WIB”), WIB Executive Director James Finamore (“Finamore”), WDC Director of Business Services Eugene F. Bagen (“Ba-gen”), WDC Director of Information Services and Technology James F. Bratek (“Bratek”), and GBW Director Ronald J. Baia (“Baia”) (collectively referred to as “Workforce Defendants”). Also sued as Defendants are Erie County Executive Joel A. Giambra (“Giambra”), Deputy Erie County Executive Carl J. Calabrese (“Ca-labrese”) (collectively referred to as “County Defendants”). Answers were filed on January 26, 2004 by the County Defendants (Doc. No. 5) (“County Defendants’ Answer”), and on January 29, 2004 by the Workforce Defendants (Doc. No. 6) (“Workforce Defendants’ Answer”). Both the County Defendants and the Workforce Defendants asserted as affirmative defenses that Krause’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. County Defendants’ Answer ¶ 9; Workforce Defendants’ Answer ¶¶ 41-45. On August 12, 2004, the Workforce Defendants moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the Complaint was untimely filed. The motion is supported by the Workforce Defendant’s Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 15) (“Workforce Defendant’s Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings”), and the Amended Affidavit of WDC Director of Business Services Bagen (Doc. No. 18) (“Bagen Affidavit”) with attached Exhibits A, B and C (“Bagen Affidavit Exhibit _”). On August 17, 2004, the County Defendants filed a motion to join in the Workforce Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion is supported by the attached Supporting Affidavit of Assistant Erie County Attorney Kristin Klein Wheaton (“Klein Wheaton Affidavit Supporting Joining Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings”). On September 30, 2004, Krause filed in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings the Affidavit of Maureen P. Krause (Doc. No. 22) (“Krause Affidavit Opposing Judgment on the Pleadings”), and a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 23) (“Krause Opposition to Judgment on the Pleadings”). Reply memoranda of law in farther support of judgment on the pleadings were filed on October 15, 2004 by the Workforce Defendants (Doc. No. 25) (‘Workforce Defendants’ Reply Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings”), and the County Defendants (Doc. No. 27) (“County Defendants’ Reply Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings”). On March 22, 2005, Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. In particular, the Workforce Defendants moved for summary judgment as to the Workforce Defendants, filing in support a Statement of Facts (Doc. No. 31) (Workforce Defendants’ Facts Statement”), with attached exhibits A through H (“Workforce Defendants’ Exh(s). _”), and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Summary Judgment on Behalf of James Finamore, Buffalo and Erie County Private Industry Council, Inc., Workforce Development Consortium, Inc. and Workforce Development Board, Inc. (Doc. No. 32) (“Workforce Defendants’ Memorandum Supporting Summary Judgment”). The County Defendants moved for summary judgment as to the County Defendants, filing in support a Statement of Facts (Doc. No. 35) (“County Defendants’ Facts Statement”), an Appendix to County Defendants’ Statement of Facts (Doc. No. 36), containing County Defendants’ Exhibits A through C (“County Defendants’ Exh. _”), and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Joel A. Giambra and Carl J. Calabrese (Doc. No. 37) (“County Defendants’ Memorandum Supporting Summary Judgment”). On May 27, 2005, Krause filed in opposition to summary judgment a Statement of Material Facts that Raises Genuine Issues and Precludes Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 40) (“Plaintiffs Facts Statement”), the Affidavit of Maureen P. Krause (Doc. No. 41) (“Krause Affidavit Opposing Summary Judgment”), the Affidavit of Brian P. McDermott (Doc. No. 42) (“McDermott Affidavit”), the Affirmation of Margaret A. Murphy, Esq. (Doc. No. 43) (“Murphy Affirmation Opposing Summary Judgment”), and a volume of exhibits entitled Plaintiffs Appendix to Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts Submitted on Behalf of Maureen P. Krause (Doc. No. 44), containing Plaintiffs Exhibits A through KK (“Plaintiffs Exh(s). _”). On June 20, 2005, the County Defendants moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c) and (d) to strike the McDermott Affidavit and Plaintiffs Exhs. F through JJ, as well as any references to such documents within Plaintiffs Facts Statement and the Krause Affidavit Opposing Summary Judgment. The motion is supported by the attached Affidavit of Assistant Erie County Attorney Kristin Klein Wheaton (“Klein Wheaton Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike”), and exhibits A through D (“County Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exh. _”). On June 21, 2005, the Workforce Defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R.CÍV.P. 37(c) and (d) to strike the McDer-mott Affidavit and Plaintiffs Exhs. F through JJ, as well as any references to such documents within Plaintiffs Facts Statement and the Krause Affidavit Opposing Summary Judgment. The motion is supported by the Affidavit of Cheryl Smith Fisher, Esq. (“Smith Fisher Affidavit”), attached to the notice of motion (Doc. No. 47). On June 23, 2005, the County Defendants filed the Reply Affidavit of Assistant Erie County Attorney Kristin Klein Wheaton in Further Support of Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. No. 48) (“Klein Wheaton Reply Affidavit”). The Workforce Defendants filed on June 23, 2005, the Reply Affidavit of Cheryl Smith Fisher, Esq., in Further Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 49) (“Smith Fisher Reply Affidavit”), and the Reply Affidavit of WDC Administrative Director Ronald J. Baia in Further Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50) (“Baia Reply Affidavit”). On July 22, 2005, Plaintiff, in opposition to Defendants’ motions to strike, filed the Affirmation of Margaret A. Murphy, Esq. (Doc. No. 54) (“Murphy Affirmation Opposing Defendants’ Motions to Strike”), attached to which are Exhibits A and B (“Murphy Affirmation Opposing Motion to Strike Exh(s). _.”), the Affidavit of Maureen P. Krause (Doc. No. 55) (“Krause Affidavit Opposing Defendants’ Motions to Strike”), and the Affidavit of Brian P. McDermott (Doc. No. 56) (“McDermott Affidavit Opposing Defendants’ Motions to Strike”). On July 26, 2005, the County Defendants filed the Reply Declaration of Assistant Erie County Attorney Kristin Klein Wheaton in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 60) (“Klein Wheaton Reply Declaration Supporting Motion to Strike”). On July 28, 2005, the Workforce Defendants filed the Reply Declaration of Cheryl Smith Fisher, Esq. in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 61) (“Smith Fisher Reply Declaration Supporting Motion to Strike”). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. Based on the following, the County Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 20) to join in the Workforce Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; the Workforce Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 13) to dismiss the Complaint as time-barred should be DENIED; the motions to strike filed by the County Defendants (Doc. No. 46) and the Workforce Defendants (Doc. No. 47) are DENIED, the motion for summary judgment filed by the Workforce Defendants (Doc. No. 30) should be DENIED; and the motion for summary judgment filed by the County Defendants (Doc. No. 34) should be DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. FACTS Maureen P. Krause commenced employment with the Buffalo and Erie County Private Industry Council (“PIC”) on December 14, 1998, as a Formula Grant Program Coordinator (“Program Coordinator”). The PIC, a consortium of four local municipalities, including Erie County, the City of Buffalo and the Towns of Cheekto-waga and Tonawanda, was a private, not-for-profit corporation charged with administering workforce-training funds under the federal Jobs Training Partnership Act (“JTPA”). The Program Coordinator position is not a civil service position. As a Program Coordinator, Krause’s immediate supervisor was PIC Director Bratek, and Krause was supervised on a daily basis by PIC Director of Planning Marie Kaczma-rek (“Kaczmarek”). Krause’s Program Coordinator position was newly created within PIC in 1998. Prior to assuming the Program Coordinator position, Krause had held a civil service position with the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority. Krause was offered the Program Coordinator position after two rounds of interviews with Bratek, Kaczmarek, WIB Executive Director Finamore, WDC Administrative Director Sam LaGreca (“LaGreca”), former PIC Director of Finance Russell J. Sfer-lazza (“Sferlazza”), and Director of Buffalo Employment and Training Services Colleen Cummings (“Cummings”). As a Program Coordinator, Krause’s duties included implementing the federal wélfare-to-work (“WTW”) grant program, referred to as Greater Buffalo Works (“GBW”), and which was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor and jointly administered by the PIC and the Erie County Department of Social Services. Edith Rifenburg, another Program Coordinator, worked with Krause in implementing the WTW program. When Krause was initially offered the Program Coordinator position, she was advised by Bratek and Kac-zmarek that she had a job commitment with the program for the three-year duration of the grant. Krause also maintains Bratek stated that PIC had applied for another three-year grant and, if approved, Krause’s Program Coordinator position would be extended for the three additional years. According to Krause, the GBW was approved for the second three-year grant. Krause, a life-long registered Democrat, has been an Erie County Democratic Committee person since 1979 and, in 1999 and at the request of then Deputy Erie County Executive James P. Keane, a Democrat, worked on the re-election campaign of then Erie County Executive Dennis Gorski (“Gorski”), also a Democrat. In November 1999, Gorski was defeated in his reelection bid by the Republican candidate, Giambra, who assumed the Erie County Executive post in January 2000. On July 1, 2000, the federal Workforce Investment Act (‘WIA”) replaced the JTPA as the country’s principal federal job-training program, and the WDC was designated as WIA’s administrative entity in Erie County. Because the WDC was not staffed and fully functional as of July 1, 2000, PIC was contracted with to provide WIA with administrative services through October 1, 2000, while WDC staff were recruited and hired. On July 25, 2000, Bratek, then PIC Director, sent letters to all PIC employees (the “July 25, 2000 Bratek Letter”), advising that PIC would “cease to provide services on September 30, 2000,” on which date the jobs of all PIC employees would be terminated and that the resulting layoffs would be permanent given that PIC would no longer exist. PIC employees were also encouraged to apply for positions with the replacement workforce development system, ie., WDC. July 25, 2000 Bratek Letter. In August 2000, Krause submitted her resumé for the recently posted positions of WDC Director and Program Coordinator, a position essentially identical to Krause’s position as GBW Program Coordinator with PIC. According to the job posting, both the Director and Program Coordinator positions required either a bachelor’s degree and five years of management or supervisory experience in the workforce development field, or a master’s degree and three years management or supervisory experience in the workforce development field. During the week of September 11, 2000, Bagen went to the GBW office to conduct interviews for the positions being transferred from PIC to WDC. According to Krause, Bagen walked around the office speaking to various PIC staff members and informing them whether they were “on or off the list.” Complaint ¶ 30. Although Bagen scheduled “interviews” with selected staff members, Krause maintains that upon reporting for the interviews, Ba-gen advised the selected staff members that “it isn’t really an interview,” and that the employee should report to work on Monday, October 2, 2000. Complaint ¶ 30. Despite possessing the specified education and experience requirements for both positions, and given her experience, since December 1998 as the GBW Program Coordinator as a PIC employee, Krause was not selected to interview for, nor offered, either position with WDC, nor was Krause ever told why she was not considered for either position. Rather, Baia, a registered Republican, was hired for the Director position, and Anthony A. Marconi, although a Democrat, a known friend and political ally of Giam-bra, and Rifenburg, a registered Republican, were hired for the Formula Grant Program Coordinator positions. Krause maintains that neither Marconi nor Rifen-burg possessed the minimum education and experience requirements as specified in the postings for the Program Coordinator positions. Krause last reported to work at her Program Coordinator position on Friday, September 29, 2000. PIC ceased operations on Saturday, September 30, 2000 and, on Monday, October 2, 2000, WDC had assumed operation of GBW. According to Krause, seven GBW staff members, all Democrats, lost their jobs following the phase-out of PIC, and all seven were replaced by non-Democrats. Complaint ¶ 32. Krause maintains that “it was common knowledge that all new hires [for WDC and WIB positions] went through the County Executive’s Officer for final approval. Calabrese, the newly appointed Deputy County Executive, was the liaison between the two offices.” Complaint ¶ 23. Krause further maintains that in late spring of 2000, Bratek presented Krause with a list of four individuals, all either registered Republicans or Conservatives and all politically connected to the newly elected Giambra administration including at least one relative of Giambra, whose names came directly from Giam-bra’s office, who were to be hired to fill vacancies with WDC and WIB, and that when Krause advised Bratek that many of the individuals lacked the qualifications specified in the relevant job descriptions, Bratek replied that if he and Krause “cooperated with the ‘new administration,’ they might be able to save their jobs.” Complaint ¶ 23. Krause responded by asking Bratek about her own job security and Bratek replied that “ ‘the only thing’ that could jeopardize her job was her friendship with James P. Keane, the former Deputy County Executive.” Complaint ¶ 25. DISCUSSION 1. Judgment on the Pleadings The Workforce Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Krause’s claim is time-barred because the Complaint establishes that Krause had enough information to know of Defendants’ alleged discriminatory employment practices more than three years before commencing the instant action. Workforce Defendants’ Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 7. The County Defendants have moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) to join in the motion. County Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Join and Adopt Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The court initially addresses the County Defendants’ motion to join the Workforce Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The County Defendants’ motion is made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) (“Rule 10(c)”) which provides that “[statements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in a different party of the same pleading or in another pleading or in any motion. A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes.” Rule 10(c), however, provides no authority for one party to adopt by reference the arguments advanced by another party in a motion in which the first party seeks to join. Rather, where a motion to join is unopposed, the arguments proffered by the defendant initiating the motion apply equally to all co-defendants, and granting the motion to join will not prejudice the plaintiff, the motion to join is generally granted. See Gulf Coast Development Group, LLC v. Lebror, 2003 WL 22871914, *1 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (observing that where co-defendant moved to join in defendant’s motion to dismiss, yet failed to present any “individualized arguments to the Court on his behalf,” co-defendant would be included in any general rulings on the motion, but would not be individually considered on the motion); and Sacay v. Research Foundation of City University of New York, 44 F.Supp.2d 505, 509 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (granting co-defendants’ motion to join defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as the arguments defendants made in support of motion equally applied to co-defendants and permitting co-defendants to join would not result in any prejudice to plaintiff). Krause has not opposed the County Defendants’ motion to join in the Workforce Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. As the Workforce Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is predicated on the assertion that Krause’s claim is time-barred, the arguments the Workforce Defendants assert in support of the motion apply equally to the Workforce Defendants and the County Defendants. Significantly, both the Workforce Defendants and the County Defendants assert expiration of the applicable statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. County Defendants’ Answer ¶ 9; Workforce Defendants’ Answer ¶ 41-45. As such, the County Defendants did not waive the statute'of limitations as an affirmative defense, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (specifying that “[ejvery defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleadings, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto .... ”), and the court’s determination as to whether Krause’s claim is time-barred will therefor apply equally to the Workforce Defendants and the County Defendants. Finally, permitting the County Defendants to join in the motion for judgment on the pleadings will not result in any prejudice to Krause. Accordingly, the County Defendants’ motion to join the Workforce Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The court next turns its attention to the merits of the motion seeking judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the instant action is time-barred. Upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), the court must follow the same standards applicable to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147, 150 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 816, 115 S.Ct. 73, 130 L.Ed.2d 28 (1994). On a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court looks to the four corners of the complaint and is required to accept the plaintiffs allegations as true and to construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375, 378 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 808, 117 S.Ct. 50, 136 L.Ed.2d 14 (1996). The court is required to read the complaint with great generosity on a motion to dismiss. Yoder v. Orthomolecular Nutrition Insti tute, 751 F.2d 555, 558 (2d Cir.1985). The complaint will be dismissed only if “it appears beyond doubt” that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1065 (2d Cir.1985). This rule applies with particular force where the plaintiff alleges a civil rights violation. Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 701 (2d Cir.1998). Krause alleges Defendants violated her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to § 1983, an individual may seek damages against any person who, under color of state law, subjects such individual to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, “Section 1983 ‘is not itself a source of a substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method for vindication of federal rights elsewhere conferred.’ ” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (citing Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979)). Thus, “[t]he first step in any such claim is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.” Id. (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443, (1989); and Baker, supra, at 140). Here, Krause’s employment discrimination claim alleges a violation of the First Amendment right to free association. Camacho v. Brandon, 317 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir.2003) (“Affiliating oneself with a political party or faction is [ ] protected by the First Amendment.”); Notaro v. Giambra, 2005 WL 711875, *7 (W.D.N.Y. March 28, 2005) (“the failure to promote, transfer, or recall a low-level public employee after layoffs based on his or her political affiliation is an impermissible infringement on First Amendment rights.”) (citing Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 76, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 111 L.Ed.2d 52 (1990) (failure to hire based on political affiliation)). “In section 1983 actions, the applicable limitations period is found in the ‘general or residual [state] statute [of limitations] for personal injury actions.’ ” Ormiston v. Nelson, 117 F.3d 69, 71 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989)). In New York, a three-year statute of limitations governs unspecified personal injury actions. Ormi-ston, supra, at 71 (citing New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules § 214(5)). Accordingly, the instant § 1983 action is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Ormiston, supra, at 71. The three-year limitations period also applies to actions against municipalities for wrongful conduct, rather than New York General Municipal Law § 50 — i(l) (specifying a one-year, 90-day limitations period for actions against municipalities for wrongful conduct). Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 189 (2d Cir.1980). Federal law, however, governs the determination of the accrual date for statute of limitations purposes in a § 1983 action. Id. (citing Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 871 (2d Cir.1994)), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 808, 116 S.Ct. 53, 133 L.Ed.2d 18 (1995). Under federal law, the limitations period accrues “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.” Cullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 725 (2d Cir.1987); see also Singleton, supra, 632 F.2d at 191 (the statute of limitations accrues “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a § 1983 plaintiff alleging unlawful employment practice against her former municipal employer, whose claim would be time-barred if it accrued prior to the termination of her employment with the municipality, must plead facts indicating she did not comprehend the nature of her circumstances until after the final date of her employment. See Ormiston, supra, at 72 (stating that § 1983 plaintiff asserting deprivation of liberty, whose claim would be time-barred if it accrued at the time of-confinement, was required to plead facts indicating the plaintiff was unable to comprehend the nature of his circumstances when he was taken into, custody). “The crucial time for accrual purposes is when the plaintiff becomes aware that he is suffering from a wrong for which damages may be recovered in a civil action.”. Singleton, supra, at 192. That evidence outside the pleadings on which Krause relies in opposing the motion for judgment on the pleadings is not, as the Workforce Defendants suggest, Workforce Defendants’ Reply Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 1-2, inapplicable. Rather, when matters outside the pleadings are relied on with regard to either a motion to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b) or for judgment on the pleadings brought under Rule 12(c), the correct procedure is to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c) (“If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and dispose of it as provided under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.”) In the instant case, although the court has not specifically notified the parties that the motion for judgment on the pleadings is being converted to a motion- for summary judgment, the conversion does not result in prejudice to Krause insofar as the court is recommending the motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. Moreover, as Defendants have separately moved for summary judgment, all parties are on notice that the claims are before the court on motions seeking a decision that may be dispositive of the action in -its entirety. See Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 68 (2d Cir.2004) (court’s failure to notify parties prior, to- converting motion for judgment on the pleadings to motion for summary judgment did not prevent parties from filing further motions for summary judgment on same issue for which judgment on the pleadings was sought). The court thus considers, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as' a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment of a claim or defense will be granted'when a moving party demonstrates that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and that a moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) and (b); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Rattner v. Netburn, 930 F.2d 204, 209 (2d Cir.1991). The court is required to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ten-enbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 591 (2d Cir.1999) (citing Anderson, supra, at 255). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact and if there is any evidence in the record based Upon any source from which a reasonable inference in the non-moving party’s favor may be drawn, a moving party cannot obtain a summary judgment. Celotex, supra, 477 U.S. at 322; see Anderson, supra, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (“summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence -is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party”). In assessing a record to determine whether there is genuine issue of material fact, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Rattner, supra, 930 F.2d at 209. “[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.’ Such a motion, whether or not accompanied by affidavits, will be ‘made and supported as provided in this rule [FRCP 56],’ and Rule 56(e) therefore requires the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Celotex, supra, at 323-24 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56). Thus, “as to issues on which the non-moving party bears the burden of proof, the moving party may simply point out the absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Group of America, Inc., 164 F.3d 736, 742 (2d Cir.1998). Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a properly supported showing as to the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, the nonmoving party must, to defeat summary judgment, come forward with evidence that would be sufficient to support a jury verdict in its favor. Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir.1995). Although a summary judgment motion may be made with or without supporting affidavits, if affidavits are submitted, they “shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Rule 56 further provides that [w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). “However, if the motion for summary judgment is not made and supported as provided in Rule 56, the Rule does not impose on the party opposing summary judgment an obligation to come forward with affidavits or other admissible evidence of his own.” St. Pierre v. Dyer, 208 F.3d 394, 404 (2d Cir.2000) (reversing granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant because defendant failed to allege factual basis for assertions contained in defendant’s affidavit such that plaintiff, as the party opposing summary judgment, was not required to adduce evidence to defeat summary judgment and the “self-serving” nature of plaintiffs affidavit statements went to the weight of the statements, rather than to their admissibility). Here, Defendants maintain that Krause’s claims accrued more than three years before she commenced the instant action on September 29, 2003. Specifically, although Krause’s last day as Program Coordinator was September 29, 2000, Defendants assert Krause’s claim accrued as early as September 11, 2000 when Bratek visited GBW’s office and invited certain employees, but not Krause, to interview for GBW positions with WDC, including the Program Coordinator position for which Krause had applied, or by September 20, 2000 when Baia was hired for the Director position for which Krause had applied, or by September 25, 2000, when both Marconi and Rifenburg were hired for the Program Coordinator positions. Workforce Defendants’ Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 8. Defendants also maintain that the speculation and rumors circulating as early as the Spring of 2000, as alleged in the Complaint, provided Krause with enough knowledge to realize her political party affiliation rendered her a likely target for replacement by someone who supported the new Giambra administration. Workforce Defendants’ Reply Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 2-3 (citing Complaint ¶¶ 22-24, 28-30). Defendants argue that although Krause’s last day of employment with PIC as GBW’s Program Coordinator was September 29, 2000, sufficient information existed such that Krause knew or had reason to know prior to September 29, 2000, of Defendants’ alleged scheme to discriminate against former PIC employees based on their political beliefs and affiliations. Workforce Defendant’s Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings, at 6; County Defendants’ Reply Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 2. The cases on which Defendants rely in support of their position, Workforce Defendants’ Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the pleadings at 3-11; Workforce Defendants’ Reply Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 2-4; County Defendants’ Reply Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 2, however, are inapposite as in each of the cited cases, although the plaintiffs employment discrimination claim was found to have accrued when the plaintiff first received notice that his employment was being terminated, in none of the cases did the circumstances suggest that the plaintiff may be rehired. See Keating v. Carey, 706 F.2d 377, 382 (2d Cir.1983) (employment discrimination claim accrued in July 1975 when plaintiff was advised he would be terminated from his employment with the Division of Criminal Justice Services based on plaintiffs membership in the Republican party, rather than on September 3, 1975, the plaintiffs last actual day of work); Pauk v. Board of Trustees of the City University of New York, 654 F.2d 856, 859 (2d Cir.1981) (plaintiffs cause of action for unlawful employment discrimination challenging defendant’s failure to grant plaintiff tenure, allegedly because of plaintiffs active participation in the faculty’s union, accrued on October 24, 1975 when plaintiff was initially notified that defendant had voted against plaintiffs reappointment with tenure, rather than on August 31, 1976, the date that plaintiffs employment was terminated); Singleton, supra, 632 F.2d 185, 191 (plaintiffs claims for assault and for false arrest accrued when plaintiff was arrested which “was the time at which plaintiff knew of his injury arising from the alleged assault and false arrest”); DeVito v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, 991 F.Supp. 137, 140 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (plaintiffs claim that he was forced to resign from his employment position with defendant village in violation of his civil rights under § 1983 based on plaintiffs support of incumbent Republican administration which was defeated in 1991 election accrued when plaintiff was offered retirement in September 1991, in lieu of being brought up on disciplinary charges which could result in the forfeiture of plaintiffs retirement benefits, rather than on the last day of plaintiffs employment on November 29, 1991, as plaintiffs subsequent retirement was the “inevitable consequence” of the decision previously made in September 1991); and Eisert v. Town of Hempstead, 918 F.Supp. 601, 607 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (employment discrimination claims brought by plaintiffs, members of the Democrat party, who took civil service examination to apply for position working as Defendant Town’s Commissioner of Purchasing and who were later interviewed for such position during which plaintiffs were questioned as to their political affiliation, accrued on day plaintiffs received letter from Town informing they had not been selected for position and that the statute of limitations had not been tolled until February 1992 when one of the plaintiffs read a report regarding the Town’s politically corrupt hiring practices). Significantly, in none of the above cases did the circumstances surrounding the termination of the plaintiffs employment include an indication that the plaintiff might be rehired, nor a claim based on such prospective hiring for a newly created position with a different, albeit successor, agency. In contrast, in the instant action, Krause’s employment claim is not predicated on Defendants’ decision to discharge all the PIC employees, including Krause, when PIC was replaced by WDC as GBW’s administrative entity but, rather, her claim is predicated on Defendants’ failure to consider her for and provide her with an opportunity to interview for either of the two WDC positions, including GBW Director and GBW Program Coordinator, for which Krause had applied, despite the fact that Krause, objectively, possessed the requisite education and experience. As such, Krause’s claim could not accrue until Krause knew, or reasonably should have known, that she would not be considered for any of the positions for which she had applied. In fact, Defendants acknowledge, Workforce Defendants’ Memorandum Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 8-9; County Defendants’ Reply Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 1, that because Krause’s employment was terminated in connection with the dissolution of PIC, which involved the termination of employment of all former PIC employees, the termination of Krause’s employment alone cannot sustain her employment discrimination action based on her political affiliation. Additionally, Krause make several assertions in opposition to the motion to dismiss that raise issues as to whether Krause was actually aware prior to her last day of employment with PIC on September 30, 2000 that she was not being considered for the GBW Program Coordinator position, none of which are disputed by Defendants. Specifically, Krause asserts in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings that upon being hired for the GBW Program Coordinator position with PIC in December 1998, Krause was advised that the position was funded for three years, and that PIC had applied for another “round of funding” which, if approved, would be extended for an additional three years. Krause Affidavit Opposing Judgment on the Pleadings ¶ 4. When Marie Kaczmarek, who supervised Krause on a daily basis, learned that, because of a change in the underlying federal funding, PIC’s functions were to be phased out and transferred to the WDC and the WIB, she indicated to Krause that the transition would have no impact on GBW. Id. ¶ 7. Additionally, the July 25, 2000 Bratek Letter advising all PIC employees that PIC would cease to provide services on September 30, 2000, and, as a result, all PIC employees would be laid off as of September 30, 2000, also advised that he was “hopeful that the new workforce development system [would] soon begin the process of selecting and hiring staff,” and urged PIC employees “to apply for employment with the new entities.” Id. ¶ 8 (citing July 25, 2000 Bratek Letter). When the GBW positions were posted in August 2000, Krause submitted her re-sumé for the Director and Program Coordinator positions, confident, based the July 25, 2000 Bratek Letter and Kaczmarek’s representation, that she would at least be interviewed for the Program Coordinator position given her experience and the favorable comments and work reviews she received while employed in that position. Id. ¶ 9. Krause further explains that although she was told that Bagen had visited the GBW’s offices during the week of September 11, 2000, and informed people whether they had been selected to be interviewed for GBW positions after the transition, Bagen never stopped by her office and Krause was not aware that any of the candidates Bagen selected to interview had applied for either the Director or Program Coordinator position. Id. ¶ 11. According to Krause, despite the gossip and speculation among her co-workers that Krause “would be politically targeted for removal,” no one with any supervisory authority ever advised Krause that she would not be considered for either position. Id. ¶ 12. In fact, when Krause left her position on September 29, 2000, she was unaware that the Program Coordinator position had been filled. Id. ¶ 13. Moreover, prior to September 29, 2000, Krause was asked to speak at an employment seminar on October 1, 2000 and, believing that she would be re-hired to the same GBW Program Coordinator position with WDC, Krause accepted the speaking engagement invitation on behalf of GBW, notifying Bratek by facsimile transmission of her acceptance. Id. ¶ 14. Krause sent a second fax to Bratek a few days before the termination of her employment with PIC, inquiring whether she should attend the employment seminar on GBW’s behalf, requesting notification by September 30, 2000, but no response was ever received. Id. It is significant that Defendants do not contest any of Krause’s assertions. Further, although Bratek states that he visited the GBW’s offices at PIC during the week of September 11, 2000 to interview PIC employees for positions with WDC, Bagen Affidavit ¶ 3, Bagen does not state whether or not he informed Krause that she was not selected as a candidate for either the GBW Director or Program Coordinator positions for which she had applied with WDC. Bagen further states that Baia was advised by letter dated September 19, 2000 that he was hired as GBW’s Director, and that Marconi and Rifenburg were advised by letters dated September 25, 2000 that they were hired as GBW’s Program Coordinators. Bagen Affidavit ¶ 2 and Exhs. A, B and C. Although Krause does not discuss whether she was aware, prior to September 30, 2000, that Baia had been hired for the GBW Director position, it is entirely possible that Krause may not have been aware that the GBW Program Coordinator positions had already been filled, given that the letters from Bagen notifying the candidates they had been selected for the positions were dated September 25, 2000, Ba-gen Affidavit ¶ 2, only a few days prior to September 29, 2000, and one of the persons hired for one of the positions, Marconi, was not then employed by GBW and, thus, not a potential source of gossip. In fact, nowhere within the record is there any indication that anyone ever bothered to inform Krause that the GBW Director and Program Coordinator positions had been filled, or that she was not being considered as a candidate for any such positions as of a particular date prior to September 29, 2000. Construing these facts in the light most favorable to Krause demonstrates the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to whether Krause knew, or should have known, prior to September 29, 2000, that she would not be considered for further employment with GBW, based on her political association or otherwise. The County Defendants further argue that Krause, once she was aware of the basic facts of her injury, was also “under an obligation to exercise due diligence in pursuing her claim,” citing Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 122 (2d Cir. 1998), in support. County Defendants’ Reply Supporting Judgment on the Pleadings at 2. In Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.1998), the Second Circuit upheld summary judgment against a plaintiff who failed to commence an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) more than six years had elapsed since he formed the belief that his injury was caused by his exposure to LSD in the 1950’s as part of a clandestine government approved experiment. The court stated that while neither “a mere hunch, hint, suspicion or rumor of a claim” is sufficient for a cause of action to accrue, they “do give rise to a duty to inquire into the possible existence of a claim in the exercise of due diligence.” Kronisch, supra, at 121 (emphasis added) (citing Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 35 & n. 107) (emphasis added). The court held that had the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence by making relevant inquiries, he would have discovered the cause of his injuries soon enough to timely commence an action. Kronisch, supra, at 124. The Second Circuit, however, has been hesitant to extend the “duty to inquire” applied in Kronisch to claims other than those asserted under the FTCA.. Specifically, in Freier v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 303 F.3d 176, 205-06 (2d Cir.2002), the Second' Circuit vacated the District Court’s determination that personal injury and wrongful death claims brought on behalf of plaintiffs decedents were time-barred because the District Court “apparently accepted defendants’ contention that a reasonable suspicion that an injury may be been caused by exposure to toxic or hazardous substances is sufficient to trigger a rule of limitations that is predicated on knowledge of a fact or event.” The Second Circuit, however, completely ignored the District Court’s actual finding that, under Kronisch, “plaintiffs were obligated, upon discovering they had cancer, to investigate to determine the cause of such injuries,” and that as sufficient information was available more than three years before the action was commenced, had plaintiffs undertaken a timely investigation as to the cause of their cancers, they would have been able to commence the action more than three years prior to the date the complaint was filed. In re Pfohl Brothers Landfill Litigation, 68 F.Supp.2d 236, 253 (W.D.N.Y.1999). The Second Circuit’s holding in Freier, supra, thus indicates an unwillingness to expand Kronisch’s holding that although “[a] claim does not accrue when a person has a mere hunch, hint, suspicion, or rumor of a claim, such suspicions do give rise to a duty to inquire into the possible existence of a claim in the exercise of due diligence,” Kronisch, supra, at 121, to claims that arise under laws other than the FTCA. Accordingly, in the instant case, neither Krause’s suspicions, nor the rumors she heard that PIC employees who were registered Democrats were being targeted for replacement should be held to have triggered any duty for Krause to investigate as to the stability of her employment with GBW or her prospect of employment with WDC. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the Complaint as time-barred should be DENIED. 2. Motion to Strike Defendants move to strike certain papers filed by Krause in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, including the McDermott Affidavit (Doc. No. 42), Plaintiffs Exhs. F through JJ, and any portion of Plaintiffs Facts Statement (Doc. No. 40), referencing the McDermott Affidavit or Plaintiffs Exhs. F through JJ, and any portion of the Krause Affidavit Opposing Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41), referencing information that Defendants maintain should have been, but was not, turned over in discovery, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c) and (d). The basis for the County Defendants’ motion to strike is that on January 26, 2004, an answer was served on the County Defendants’ behalf, along with a First Set of Interrogatories pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 (“the interrogatories”) and a Notice to Take Deposition of Krause pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 (“the deposition notice”) (together, “the discovery demands”). Klein Wheaton Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike ¶ 3 and Exh. A. On February 23, 2004, Assistant County Attorney Klein Wheaton wrote Krause’s attorney, Margaret Murphy requesting Murphy contact Klein Wheaton and Workforce Defendants’ attorney, Cheryl Smith Fisher, to confer as to mandatory disclosures and a discovery plan. Id. ¶ 4 and Exh. B. Thereafter, Klein Whea-ton, Murphy and Smith Fisher participated in a telephone conference call which resulted in Klein Wheaton’s submitting a proposed discovery plan to the court on February 26, 2004. Id. ¶ 4. According to Klein Wheaton, at no time during the conference call did Murphy object to the service of the interrogatories prior to the Rule 16(b) conference. Id. The Rule 16(b) conference was held before the court on March 22, 2004, following which Murphy told Klein Wheaton that Murphy was “working on the interrogatories” and that Krause’s answers to the interrogatories would soon be finished. Klein Wheaton Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike ¶ 5. Klein Wheaton responded by advising Murphy that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the discovery demands should not have been served until after the Rule 16(b) conference on March 16, 2004 and, as such, Krause’s responses to the discovery demands were not due until 30 days after the Rule 16(b) conference. Id. The court’s scheduling order, filed March 23, 2004 (Doc. No. 10), established May 21, 2004 as the deadline for filing mandatory disclosures. Klein Wheaton received Krause’s mandatory disclosures on May 24, 2004. Klein Wheaton Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike ¶ 6 and Exh. C. on August 4, 2004, Klein Wheaton, who had yet to receive any response to the first set of interrogatories, wrote Murphy requesting responses. Id. ¶ 7 and Exh. D. Klein Wheaton never received any response to the letter nor any objections to the discovery demands she served on January 26, 2004. Id. ¶ 7. The County Defendants now move to strike the McDermott Affidavit and Plaintiffs Exhs. F through JJ based on Krause’s failure to disclose such information pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)’s mandatory disclosure requirement. The Workforce Defendants did not separately move to strike but, rather, have joined in the County Defendants’ motion to strike. Smith Fisher Affidavit ¶ 2. The Workforce Defendants specifically challenge evidence Krause submitted in opposition to summary judgment that was not disclosed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)’s mandatory disclosure requirement, id. ¶ 2, and further object to Krause’s proffer of evidence in opposition to summary judgment that was never disclosed in response to the County Defendants’ discovery demands. Id. ¶ 3. The Workforce Defendants’ attorney, Cherly Smith Fisher, maintains that she advised Krause’s attorney, Margaret Murphy, that the Workforce Defendants were relying on Krause’s responses to the discovery demands, including the interrogatories and document requests, served by the County Defendants and, thus, Krause’s failure to response to the County Defendants’ discovery demands has “unfairly disadvantaged” the Workforce Defendants. Id. The court first addresses whether the McDermott Affidavit should be struck based on Krause’s failure to disclose, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1), McDermott as a witness. Krause does not deny she failed to disclose Krause as part of her mandatory disclosure; rather, Krause contends that McDermott was not identified as a witness until May 21, 2005, and Defendants were given notice on May 27, 2005 that McDermott was a witness. Murphy Affirmation Opposing Defendants’ Motions to Strike ¶¶ 17-18. Krause identified McDermott as a potential witness on May 21, 2005, as that is when she learned that McDermott had been laid off from his position with GBW and had not been called back to work. Krause Affidavit Opposing Defendants’ Motions to Strike ¶ 2. According to Krause, she did not previously identify McDermott as a potential witness because McDermott was a single father who had retained his job with GBW. Id. ¶ 3. McDermott also states that prior to being laid off by GBW, he never would have agreed to be a witness against his employer given that he was a single father and his concern that giving testimony against his employer could result in adverse consequences at his job. McDer-mott Affidavit Opposing Defendants’ Motions to Strike ¶ 3. Krause further states that if Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)’s mandatory disclosure requirement mandated the disclosure of all individuals likely to have discoverable information, rather than only those “individuals whom ‘the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses,’” she would have been required to identify all GBW employees as potential witnesses. Murphy Affidavit Opposing Defendants’ Motions to Strike ¶ 19 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)). Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a) (“Rule 33(a)”) provides that, absent leave of court or written stipulation, interrogatories may not be served before the parties have conferred as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) (requiring parties to confer to establish discovery schedule), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 (“Rule 30”) forbids serving a deposition notice before such conference, Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(a) (“Rule 26(a)”) mandates the disclosure of certain evidence without awaiting a discovery request. Such initial disclosure includes, as relevant to the instant motions, the identity of each individual likely to have information supporting the disclosing party’s claims, Rule 26(a)(1)(A), and a copy or description of all documents, data compilations and tangible things within the possession, custody or control of the party who seeks to rely on such information, Rule 26(a)(1)(B). Rule 26(e)(1) provides that a party is under a duty to supplement earlier disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a) upon learning that such earlier disclosures were, in some material aspect, incomplete or incorrect and that the additional or corrective information had not otherwise been made known to the other parties. A party is similarly required to supplement or amend prior responses to interrogatories and discovery requests. Rule 26(e)(2). The purpose of mandatory disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 “is to enable the parties to more efficiently formulate discovery requests.” Mac-Ray Corp. v. Ricotta, 2004 WL 1368857, *3 (W.D.N.Y. June 16, 2004) (citing Lovato v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 200 F.R.D. 448, 450 (D.Colo.), rev’d on other grounds, 201 F.R.D. 509 (D.Col.2001), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, advisory committee’s note 1993 Amendment, Paragraph (1)). Rule 26 does not expressly provide for sanctions for failure to comply, the Advisory Committee note accompanying Rule 26 acknowledges that the trial court may impose such sanctions as excluding the evidence or ordering a continuance. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 advisory committee’s note. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) (“Rule 37(c)(1)”), however, provides [a] party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed. Although Rule 37 does not specifically address the failure to supplement in accordance with Rule 26(e), “it is within the inherent power of the district court to impose sanctions for a violation of Rule 26(e) and eases interpreting Rule 37 relating to discovery failures are useful in determining the proper sanctions for such a violation.” Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 589 (2d Cir.1988). The imposition of discovery sanctions is within the discretion of the district court. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976); Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 916 F.2d 759 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 943, 111 S.Ct. 1404, 113 L.Ed.2d 459 (1991). Severe sanctions, such as preclusion of evidence or dismissal of the action, can generally only be imposed upon a showing of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the party refusing discovery. Cine Forty-Second Street v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 602 F.2d 1062, 1066-67 (2d Cir.1979). The court should consider four factors in deciding what sanctions are appropriate. Outley, surpa, at 590. The four factors include (1) the proponent’s explanation for failing to provide the subject evidence; (2) the importance of such evidence to the proponent’s case; (3) the opponent’s time needed to prepare to meet the evidence; and (4) the possibility of obtaining a continuance to permit the opponent to meet the evidence. Outley, supra, at 590 (citing cases). In Outley, supra, the plaintiff violated Rule 26(e) by failing to supplement the original responses to the defendants discovery requests by providing recently acquired information, ie., the addresses and telephone numbers of critical eyewitnesses. The defendants first learned the plaintiff had acquired such information at trial when the plaintiffs counsel, in his opening statement, stated that the jury would hear testimony from the eyewitnesses. Outley, supra,