13 Cited authorities

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)"
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
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
Dellums v. Powell
566 F.2d 231 (D.C. Cir. 1977) Cited 52 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.
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.]
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"
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.
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 99,217 times 679 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 47,664 times 331 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,110 times 16 Legal Analyses
Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,753 times 134 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
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 13,599 times 154 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."
Rule 29 - Stipulations About Discovery Procedure
Fed. R. Civ. P. 29 Cited 1,091 times 7 Legal Analyses
Requiring "written stipulation" for extension of response periods provided for in the rules of procedure

Ashford et al v. East Coast Express Eviction et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that "willfulness or at least gross negligence" is required to justify the most severe discovery sanctions

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

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.

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"

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.

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

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

Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

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

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."

Requiring "written stipulation" for extension of response periods provided for in the rules of procedure