§Why CasetextPricing

Maldonado v. Federal Express Corporation

MOTION to Strike 128 Notice

10 Cited authorities

  1. EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc.

    618 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2010)   Cited 398 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts need not strike contradictory errata revisions "if sufficiently persuasive reasons are given, if the proposed amendments truly reflect [the original testimony], or if other circumstances" justify the amendments

  2. Hambleton Bros. Lumber v. Balkin Enterprises

    397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(e) and 30(f) is an absolute prerequisite for correcting a deposition under Rule 30(e)

  3. A.C. v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

    711 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013)   Cited 192 times
    Holding that a request for accommodation is a protected act under the ADA

  4. Norelus v. Denny's, Inc.

    628 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 185 times
    Holding that parties waive all legal claims and arguments not briefed before the court on appeal

  5. Burns v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Jackson Cty

    330 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 227 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 30(e) cannot be interpreted as allowing a deponent to alter what was said under oath with an errata sheet

  6. Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp.

    207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 137 times
    Holding the McDonnell Douglas test is appropriate in RIF cases

  7. Combs v. Rockwell Intern. Corp.

    927 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that a deponent authorizing counsel to make changes to deposition transcript was a "direct violation" of Rule 30(e)

  8. Trout v. Firstenergy Gen. Corp.

    339 F. App'x 560 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff did not provide clear notice, even though she expressly framed her complaint as a concern about safety hazards, because her employer "could have reasonably viewed her report as a defense of her work product"

  9. Bancfirst v. Ford Motor Co.

    422 F. App'x 663 (10th Cir. 2011)   Cited 14 times

    No. 10-6137. April 18, 2011. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Tim Leonard, J. John M. Merritt, Merritt Associates, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Mary Quinn Cooper, Brita Haugland Cantrell, Andrew L. Richardson, Michael F. Smith, Eldridge Cooper Steichen Leach, PLLC, Tulsa, OK, for DefendantAppellee. Before LUCERO, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND JUDGMENT This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under

  10. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,075 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely