23 Cited authorities

Chrysler Intern. Corp. v. Chemaly
280 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 220 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Chrysler's “reliance on Charles” was “misplaced” because, “[i]n Charles, the reason given by the district court for denying permission to take the deposition was simply that the discovery period had closed”
Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA
190 F.R.D. 556 (S.D. Cal. 1999) Cited 100 times
Finding no distinction between a discovery deposition and trial deposition
Estenfelder v. Gates Corp.
199 F.R.D. 351 (D. Colo. 2001) Cited 53 times
Holding that the discovery cut-off does not affect parties from memorializing the testimony of an unavailable witness through a trial deposition
Smith v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
302 F.R.D. 688 (S.D. Fla. 2014) Cited 22 times
Granting defense motion for a protective order to preclude untimely depositions for trial preservation purposes and holding that "permitting parties as a matter of course to take depositions after the close of discovery would undermine the Court's ability to manage its docket"
In re Kubler
No. MC 11-0048 JB (D.N.M. Jan. 25, 2012) Cited 20 times
No. MC 11-0048 JB 01-25-2012 In re Petition of DEBORAH D. KUBLER ANDREA LYNN KUBLER, and ROBERT MICHAEL KUBLER, JR. Counsel: Steven G. Farber Santa Fe, New Mexico Attorney for the Petitioners Kenneth J. Gonzales United States Attorney Virgil H. Lewis II Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Respondent United States of America Denise M. Chanez Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin, & Robb, P.A. Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Respondents
19th Street Baptist Church v. St. Peters Episcopal Church
190 F.R.D. 345 (E.D. Pa. 2000) Cited 30 times
Granting motion where the proposed witnesses were between the ages of 86 and 91
Tatman v. Collins
938 F.2d 509 (4th Cir. 1991) Cited 42 times
Concluding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure draw no distinction between depositions taken for discovery and depositions taken for use at trial
United States v. International Business Machines Corp.
90 F.R.D. 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) Cited 50 times
Refusing to admit deposition testimony of witness who had been excused at trial without any effort to elicit evidence now offered through deposition
Henkel v. XIM Products, Inc.
133 F.R.D. 556 (D. Minn. 1991) Cited 32 times
Finding no distinction between a discovery deposition and trial deposition
Savoie v. Lafourche Boat Rentals, Inc.
627 F.2d 722 (5th Cir. 1980) Cited 46 times
Holding that nothing prohibits the use of discovery depositions at trial
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 96,831 times 669 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,384 times 130 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
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,420 times 322 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,276 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 1961 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 15,028 times 72 Legal Analyses
Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include
Rule 613 - Witness's Prior Statement
Fed. R. Evid. 613 Cited 800 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing the procedure for admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement

Fundacion Segarra-Boerman e Hijos, Inc. et al v. Martinez-Alvarez et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that Chrysler's “reliance on Charles” was “misplaced” because, “[i]n Charles, the reason given by the district court for denying permission to take the deposition was simply that the discovery period had closed”

Finding no distinction between a discovery deposition and trial deposition

Holding that the discovery cut-off does not affect parties from memorializing the testimony of an unavailable witness through a trial deposition

Granting defense motion for a protective order to preclude untimely depositions for trial preservation purposes and holding that "permitting parties as a matter of course to take depositions after the close of discovery would undermine the Court's ability to manage its docket"

Granting motion where the proposed witnesses were between the ages of 86 and 91

Concluding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure draw no distinction between depositions taken for discovery and depositions taken for use at trial

Refusing to admit deposition testimony of witness who had been excused at trial without any effort to elicit evidence now offered through deposition

Finding no distinction between a discovery deposition and trial deposition

Holding that nothing prohibits the use of discovery depositions at trial

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

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

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

Providing the procedure for admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement