§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE: Brican America LLC Equipment Lease Litigation

MOTION for Sanctions

13 Cited authorities

  1. Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc.

    469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006)   Cited 297 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that corporate party violated Rule 30(b) by failing to prepare its designee with respect to issues that, although not within his personal knowledge, were within the corporate knowledge of the organization

  2. Black Horse Lane Assocs., L.P. v. Dow Chem. Corp.

    228 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 243 times
    Holding response costs were not necessary because they did not pertain to a remedial or removal action on the contaminated property

  3. Resolution Tr. Corp. v. S. Union Co.

    985 F.2d 196 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presence of an unprepared 30(b) designee constitutes "no appearance at all"

  4. Rainey v. American Forest and Paper Ass'n, Inc.

    26 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 1998)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FWW requires contemporaneous overtime payment

  5. Calzaturficio S.C.A.R.P.A. S.P.A. v. Fabiano Shoe Co.

    201 F.R.D. 33 (D. Mass. 2001)   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "corporation is obligated to prepare [Rule 30(b)(6)] designees so that they may give knowledgeable and binding answers for the corporation"

  6. Continental Casualty Co. v. First Fin. Employee Leasing

    716 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (M.D. Fla. 2010)   Cited 29 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that Rainey and its progeny "overstate the binding effect of Rule 30(b) testimony"

  7. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories

    203 F.R.D. 159 (D. Del. 2001)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a corporation's agreement to adopt a witness's prior deposition testimony as sufficient to preclude a subsequent designee deposition on the same subject

  8. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google Inc.

    CASE NO. 2:07-CV-279-CE (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2010)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    CASE NO. 2:07-CV-279-CE. January 15, 2010 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV, Magistrate Judge I. Introduction Before the court is the plaintiff Function Media, L.L.C.'s ("FM") motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct and declaration that this case is exceptional (Dkt. No. 195). FM contends that Google not only has not provided clear and convincing evidence that the patentees made a material misstatement with intent to deceive the PTO, but Google's inequitable conduct

  9. Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3: 06-CV-0271-B (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2007)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that summary judgment should be granted where the plaintiff cannot establish damages or has no competent evidence of damages

  10. A.I.A. Holdings, S.A. v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.

    97 Civ. 4978 (LMM) (HBP) (S.D.N.Y. May. 20, 2002)   Cited 3 times

    97 Civ. 4978 (LMM) (HBP) May 20, 2002 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER HENRY PITTMAN, United States Magistrate Judge I. Introduction Plaintiffs seek a protective order directing that the depositions of certain individual plaintiffs be taken telephonically due to the plaintiffs' advanced age and frail physical condition. Plaintiffs also seek a protective order limiting the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Intaj S.A.L. to written interrogatories. II. Motion of Adib Kaba, Souad Kaba Zakaa Hakim and Ahmad Kawas

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 48,771 times   338 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  12. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 17,112 times   137 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