§Why CasetextPricing

Hudson Savings Bank v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

Opposition re MOTION to Strike 63 Affidavit in Support of Progressive's Motion for Summary Judgment

7 Cited authorities

  1. Metro Ford Truck Sales v. Ford Motor Co.

    145 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 303 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff permission to designate an expert one week after the deadline, where the expert's written report was not filed until three months later because "[t]he purpose of supplementary disclosures is just that — to supplement. Such disclosures are not intended to provide an extension of the expert designation and report production deadline." (footnote omitted)

  2. Thibeault v. Square D Co.

    960 F.2d 239 (1st Cir. 1992)   Cited 168 times
    Holding dismissal appropriate when plaintiff conceded that he could not make out a case without the precluded expert evidence

  3. Licciardi V. TIG Insurance Group

    140 F.3d 357 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 39 times
    Finding a Rule 26(e) violation where, due to defendant's failure to supplement his interrogatories, "plaintiff was prejudiced by presenting a case addressed to one key issue, only to have defendant put on a case addressed to a different predicate key issue"

  4. Johnson v. H.K. Webster, Inc.

    775 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1985)   Cited 49 times
    Stating that among the factors to consider when assessing a claim of error under Rule 26 is "the ability of the [opposing party] to formulate a response"

  5. Hartford Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co.

    526 F. Supp. 2d 250 (D.R.I. 2007)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing a case involving separate experts on fire cause and fire origin

  6. Alexander v. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare

    392 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Ill. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    No. 74 C 2411. April 14, 1975. Magnolia Alexander, pro se. James A. McGurk, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendant. DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS McMILLEN, District Judge. The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint against the above-named defendant, which has filed a motion to dismiss by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that she has been deprived of various "civil rights" by the defendant, and she apparently seeks damages and a restitution

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,538 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37