finding no error in district court's conclusion that new category of damages was not admissible under Rule 26(e) where proponent of evidence did not contend the information on which the new evidence was based was unavailable at the time of the original disclosure
Summary of this case from Sauer Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Agency, Inc.No. 98-16716.
December 13, 1999.
Appeal from the D.Nev.
Affirmed.
finding no error in district court's conclusion that new category of damages was not admissible under Rule 26(e) where proponent of evidence did not contend the information on which the new evidence was based was unavailable at the time of the original disclosure
Summary of this case from Sauer Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Agency, Inc.Full title:MRO Communications, Inc. v. American Tel. Tel. Co
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Date published: Dec 13, 1999
Pp. 441-443. 205 F.3d 1351, vacated and remanded. William Bradford Reynolds argued the cause for…
Technologies v. Palmer Luckey and Oculus Vr, LLCSee, e.g., In re M.C. Prods., 205 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1999); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31…