Clinton v. Jones
520 U.S. 681 (1997) Cited 2,694 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding in Section 1983 action no absolute immunity for damages arising from "unofficial conduct"
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.
975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 6,194 timesHolding the "good cause" standard of Rule 16 controls after a scheduling order establishes the pleading timetable
Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.
302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,159 timesHolding that pro se plaintiff's good faith mistake of law amounted to mere inadvertence, and did not warrant relief from an untimely jury demand
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
457 U.S. 731 (1982) Cited 764 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that denials of absolute immunity are immediately appealable
Geiserman v. MacDonald
893 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 801 timesHolding that a trial court may extend time for response to interrogatories under Rule 6(b) or otherwise issue sanctions under Rule 37
Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA
190 F.R.D. 556 (S.D. Cal. 1999) Cited 99 timesFinding no distinction between a discovery deposition and trial deposition
Barnett v. Norman
782 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 24 timesNo. 13–15234. 03-31-2015 Troas V. BARNETT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. David NORMAN; A. Castro; Tracy Jackson ; A. Fouch; J. Prudhomme; D. Fulks; Jason Barba; K. Curtiss; Michael Pallares; K. Lennon; Martin Gamboa; Angel Duran; Dimas Manuel Torres Barraza; Manuel Torres, Defendants–Appellees. Ian Samuel (argued) Jones Day, New York, New York, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Janine K. Jeffery (argued) Reily & Jeffery, Inc. Northridge, CA, for Defendants–Appellees. OWENS, Circuit Judge Ian Samuel (argued) Jones
Mann v. Fernandez
615 F. Supp. 2d 1277 (D.N.M. 2009) Cited 23 timesHolding the plaintiff bound by previous counsel's decision not to designate an expert witness, and finding no good cause under Rule 16(b) to reopen discovery
George v. Ford Motor Company
03 Civ. 7643 (GEL) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2007) Cited 17 timesHolding that de bene esse depositions are subject to discovery scheduling orders
Henkel v. XIM Products, Inc.
133 F.R.D. 556 (D. Minn. 1991) Cited 32 timesFinding no distinction between a discovery deposition and trial deposition
Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Cited 33,726 times 51 Legal AnalysesAdopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)