§Why CasetextPricing

Doe v. Cabrera

MOTION in Limine for Sanctions Precluding Evidence of Damages

13 Cited authorities

  1. Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.

    259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 1,327 times
    Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure

  2. Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc.

    227 F.R.D. 467 (N.D. Tex. 2005)   Cited 226 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff was not required to disclose a dollar amount of damages under Rule 26(C) because plaintiff did not intend to ask the jury for a specific dollar amount of damages at trial

  3. Nutrasweet Company v. X-L Engineering Co.

    227 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 192 times
    Holding that an expert's reliance on individual pieces of evidence, insufficient in themselves to prove a point, "did not render his opinion speculative"

  4. Klonoski v. Mahlab

    156 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that evidence was not introduced "solely for impeachment purposes" where the evidence was "both impeaching and substantive"

  5. Wilson v. Bradlees of New England

    250 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2001)   Cited 133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party facing sanctions under Rule 37(c) bears the burden of showing its conduct was substantially justified

  6. Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc.

    775 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 2014)   Cited 72 times
    Finding "the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the new declaration" where discovery had closed and declaration was untimely

  7. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    276 F.R.D. 637 (E.D. Wash. 2011)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that plaintiff had not waived privilege where he alleged only garden-variety mental anguish and had not affirmatively relied on any privileged communications

  8. Gould Paper Corporation v. Madisen Corp.

    614 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that defendants' disclosure of hundreds of pages of documents detailing the basis for defendants' damages claim did not satisfy Rule 26 for defendants' breach of contract counterclaim

  9. Farrington v. Brown

    65 Cal. 320 (Cal. 1885)   Cited 3 times

    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. COUNSEL: J. H. Budd, for Appellant. J. C. Campbell, for Respondents. OPINION The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. THE COURT. The appeal is from a judgment rendered on failure of plaintiff to amend her complaint, after an order of court sustaining a demurrer thereto, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts constituting a cause of action. The action is brought to enjoin the defendant Brown, a constable, from

  10. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,817 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 68,861 times   122 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,850 times   319 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  13. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 10,882 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)