28 Cited authorities

Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.
259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,369 times
Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure
In re TMI Litigation
193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 774 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a District Court properly excluded expert testimony where the sole basis for the testimony was summaries prepared by a party's attorney
Bowers v. National
475 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 548 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Bowers stated a claim under Title II
Salgado v. Gen. Motors
150 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 566 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
Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler
502 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 291 times
Finding no express requirement in Rule 16(f) that a party must act in bad faith prior to a Court awarding sanctions
Metro Ford Truck Sales v. Ford Motor Co.
145 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 312 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)
Matter of Sanction of Baker
744 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1984) Cited 437 times 2 Legal Analyses
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"
Keener v. United State
181 F.R.D. 639 (D. Mont. 1998) Cited 197 times
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)
Trost v. Trek Bicycle Corp.
162 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 1998) Cited 176 times
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
Cecala v. Newman
532 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2007) Cited 110 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
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 99,217 times 679 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 47,664 times 331 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 35,128 times 55 Legal Analyses
Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,663 times 51 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"

Souja et al v. Inc. Owens-Illinois et al

28 Cited authorities

Holding that the burden to show substantial justification or harmlessness is on the party who made the late disclosure

Holding that a District Court properly excluded expert testimony where the sole basis for the testimony was summaries prepared by a party's attorney

Holding that Bowers stated a claim under Title II

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 no express requirement in Rule 16(f) that a party must act in bad faith prior to a Court awarding sanctions

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

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

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"