23 Cited authorities

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.
370 U.S. 626 (1962) Cited 25,986 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte
Ladien v. Astrachan
128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,860 times
In Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051, 1056 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1997), we noted that the overlap between Rules 41(b) and 37(b) — both cover failures to comply with orders of the court — and the slightly different requirements for justifying dismissal under each rule pose a conflict.
Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc.
529 U.S. 460 (2000) Cited 263 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding amendment did not relate back where plaintiff knew of the party's "role and existence" and added the new party only after learning the named defendant could not satisfy the judgment
Ciomber v. Cooperative
527 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 549 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the non-movant's Local Rule 56.1(b)(B) response "contained several extremely long, argumentative paragraphs, and in those paragraphs [the non-movant] simultaneously denied the veracity of [the movant's] proposed material facts and presented additional facts of his own..., the district court did not err by refusing to consider the facts he proposed"
Salgado v. Gen. Motors
150 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 573 times
Holding that "the district court acted well within its discretion when it imposed the sanction of excluding the testimony of the expert witness" because the party had failed to comply with the court's scheduling order
Tribble v. Evangelides
670 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2012) Cited 191 times
Finding "willfulness" under Rule 37(c) where the defendants "knew that they wanted to elicit exactly the testimony that they did" but failed to make the disclosure required by Rule 26
Easley v. Kirmsee
382 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2004) Cited 181 times
Holding that litigants have duty of diligence to inquire about status of case and to seek clarification of court rules
Finley v. Marathon Oil Co.
75 F.3d 1225 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 179 times
Affirming exclusion of rebuttal expert evidence disclosed only a few days before trial
U.S. v. Golden Elevator, Inc.
27 F.3d 301 (7th Cir. 1994) Cited 114 times
Upholding decision to dismiss case with prejudice as a result of plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with court orders
Tango Music, LLC v. Deadquick Music, Inc.
348 F.3d 244 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 71 times
Holding that diversity jurisdiction obtains under § 1332 even where the foreign citizens on each side of the litigation are from the same country
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 102,103 times 702 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 48,859 times 338 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Cited 36,166 times 55 Legal Analyses
Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 16,160 times 52 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
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 13,936 times 159 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 33 - Interrogatories to Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 Cited 11,432 times 22 Legal Analyses
Adopting Rule 30(b)

Krik v. Crane Co., et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that Rule 41(b)'s allowance for a party to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute did not implicitly abrogate the court's power to dismiss sua sponte

In Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051, 1056 n. 5 (7th Cir. 1997), we noted that the overlap between Rules 41(b) and 37(b) — both cover failures to comply with orders of the court — and the slightly different requirements for justifying dismissal under each rule pose a conflict.

Holding amendment did not relate back where plaintiff knew of the party's "role and existence" and added the new party only after learning the named defendant could not satisfy the judgment

Holding that "the district court acted well within its discretion when it imposed the sanction of excluding the testimony of the expert witness" because the party had failed to comply with the court's scheduling order

Finding "willfulness" under Rule 37(c) where the defendants "knew that they wanted to elicit exactly the testimony that they did" but failed to make the disclosure required by Rule 26

Holding that litigants have duty of diligence to inquire about status of case and to seek clarification of court rules

Affirming exclusion of rebuttal expert evidence disclosed only a few days before trial

Upholding decision to dismiss case with prejudice as a result of plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with court orders

Holding that diversity jurisdiction obtains under § 1332 even where the foreign citizens on each side of the litigation are from the same country

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

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

Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

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."

Adopting Rule 30(b)