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
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)
Holding that sanctions under Rule 16 are critical to a court's "management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts, opposing parties or both"
Holding that a untimely disclosure that contains new opinions not contained in the expert's timely filed report did not qualify as a supplemental report under 26(e)
Holding that where the only evidence plaintiff offered of product's defective condition under Minnesota law was expert testimony that the district court excluded, summary judgment was appropriate
532 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2007) Cited 109 times
Holding that a plaintiff client who enters into a consensual sexual relationship with an attorney without any independently inappropriate conduct on the part of the lawyer, cannot recover in an action unless the plaintiff's legal position was negatively affected by the relationship
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 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"