23 Cited authorities

  1. 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”
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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"
  5. 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

  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,990 times   660 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,235 times   128 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
  13. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,355 times   321 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"
  14. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,159 times   48 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"
  15. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 14,992 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include
  16. Rule 613 - Witness's Prior Statement

    Fed. R. Evid. 613   Cited 796 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing the procedure for admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement