20 Cited authorities

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) Cited 20,353 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
Hanna v. Plumer
380 U.S. 460 (1965) Cited 3,168 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.
259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,324 times
Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
326 U.S. 99 (1945) Cited 2,322 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case
Wong v. Regents of University of California
410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 623 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert witness testimony where plaintiff failed to timely identify the witness "without substantial justification"
Lockheed Martin. v. Network Solutions
194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 625 times
Holding that the court must consider “the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party's means of infringement”
Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc.
738 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2013) Cited 338 times
Holding that criticisms of an expert's choice of comparator company and extrapolation from one market to a larger region went to "the weight of the testimony ... not its admissibility"
Van Elslander v. Thomas Sebold & Assocs., Inc.
297 Mich. App. 204 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 52 times
Holding that the trial court properly awarded the defendants case-evaluation sanctions for both trials when the first trial was favorable to the plaintiff but the second trial after remand was favorable to the defendants
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 38 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine "does not . . . immunize a party from actions that amount to a breach of contract."
Chodorow v. Moore
947 So. 2d 577 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 32 times
Finding that an attorney's fees award for the whole litigation may be appropriate when a statute mandates payment of attorney's fees to the prevailing party on one claim when other claims in the suit are closely factually related
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,437 times 648 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Cited 45,688 times 316 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,036 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Rule 39 - Trial by Jury or by the Court
Fed. R. Civ. P. 39 Cited 1,800 times 10 Legal Analyses
Granting the trial court the power to determine that "a right of trial by jury of some or all of those issues does not exist under the Constitution or statutes of the United States"

Huawei Technologies, Co, Ltd et al v. Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. et al

20 Cited authorities

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072

Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure

Holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert witness testimony where plaintiff failed to timely identify the witness "without substantial justification"

Holding that the court must consider “the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third party's means of infringement”

Holding that criticisms of an expert's choice of comparator company and extrapolation from one market to a larger region went to "the weight of the testimony ... not its admissibility"

Holding that the trial court properly awarded the defendants case-evaluation sanctions for both trials when the first trial was favorable to the plaintiff but the second trial after remand was favorable to the defendants

Holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine "does not . . . immunize a party from actions that amount to a breach of contract."

Finding that an attorney's fees award for the whole litigation may be appropriate when a statute mandates payment of attorney's fees to the prevailing party on one claim when other claims in the suit are closely factually related

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Granting the trial court the power to determine that "a right of trial by jury of some or all of those issues does not exist under the Constitution or statutes of the United States"