13 Cited authorities

  1. Saria v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    228 F.R.D. 536 (S.D.W. Va. 2005)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that since "interrogatory responses may be used at trial, they are nothing short of testimony. When responses are only signed by an attorney, and not by the client, the attorney has effectively been made a witness. Likewise, the failure to provide client verification undermines the dispositive motion process under Rule 56(c)"
  2. Weisberg v. Webster

    749 F.2d 864 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that "willfulness or at least gross negligence" is required to justify the most severe discovery sanctions
  3. Fonville v. District of Columbia

    230 F.R.D. 38 (D.D.C. 2005)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that failure to object to document production in a timely manner, like the failure to object to an interrogatory, constitutes an automatic waiver of any objections where no extension of time had been requested and no good cause existed for the failure to interpose objections
  4. Dellums v. Powell

    566 F.2d 231 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 51 times
    In Dellums, the issue before the court was whether the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed certain class action plaintiffs for failing to respond to interrogatories.
  5. United States v. Hansen

    233 F.R.D. 665 (S.D. Cal. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    Martin M. Shoemaker, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff. Christopher M. Hansen, Alberta, CA, pro se. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL STORMES, United States Magistrate Judge. Before this Court is the Motion of United States of America (" Plaintiff" ) to Compel Appearance at Deposition of Defendant Christopher M. Hansen (" Defendant" ). [Dkt. No. 34, 35.] Defendant has filed an Opposition to the Motion. [Dkt. No. 37, 38.]

  6. Albert v. Starbucks Coffee Company Inc.

    213 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007)   Cited 4 times
    Rejecting "the proposition that the mere filing of a motion for protective order requires the court to excuse a party's failure to obey a court order compelling attendance at a deposition"
  7. McDowell v. the Government of the Dist. of Columbia

    233 F.R.D. 193 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 4 times
    In McDowell v. District of Columbia, 233 F.R.D. 192 (D.D.C.2006), plaintiff claimed that her civil rights were violated by District of Columbia police when she was subjected to illegal strip and body cavity searches, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  8. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 97,825 times   674 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  9. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 47,073 times   326 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
  10. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,753 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,547 times   131 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
  12. Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 34   Cited 13,452 times   152 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."
  13. Rule 29 - Stipulations About Discovery Procedure

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 29   Cited 1,079 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Requiring "written stipulation" for extension of response periods provided for in the rules of procedure