§Why CasetextPricing

DEXCEL PHARMA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. et al v. SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE et al

BRIEF in Support

11 Cited authorities

  1. R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC

    606 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant could not have "misappropriated" the plaintiff's trade secret by obtaining it from a third party because that third party "was under no contractual duty" to maintain the secrecy of the plaintiff's information

  2. Newman v. GHS Osteopathic, Inc.

    60 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 344 times
    Holding that the McDonnell Douglas causation standard applied to indirectly proving disparate treatment under the ADA

  3. Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Assn

    559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1977)   Cited 560 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of important witnesses for failure to comply with pre-trial orders but noting that "it would have been entirely appropriate for the district court to impose reasonable sanctions"

  4. FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co.

    196 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (E.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 54 times
    Granting motion to quash subpoenas of settling defendants' experts even though expert reports had been exchanged and where the movant did not show that the experts had unique expertise otherwise unavailable by other experts in the field

  5. In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation

    Master File No. CV 01-11115 RSWL (CWx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2011)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that motions in limine should "rarely seek to exclude broad categories of evidence, as the court is almost always better situated to rule on evidentiary issues in their factual context during trial"

  6. Rubel v. Eli Lilly and Co.

    160 F.R.D. 458 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)   Cited 48 times
    Holding the plaintiff waived Rule 26(b)(B)'s protections by allowing the expert to be deposed

  7. R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC

    657 F. Supp. 2d 899 (N.D. Ohio 2009)   Cited 17 times
    Applying Rule 26(b)(D) to determine if one party could depose an expert witness designated by the other party, whose designation that party subsequently withdrew

  8. Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.

    472 F. Supp. 2d 604 (D. Del. 2007)   Cited 10 times
    Granting motion to exclude an opinion that was not disclosed in an expert report

  9. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 99,108 times   679 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  10. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 47,615 times   331 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  11. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 23,235 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks