Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion to dismiss well after the scheduled close of discovery, given the absence of supplementary filings from the non-movant.
OK Resorts of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Charles Taylor Consulting Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
Absent a showing of bad faith or prejudice, discovery delay in producing dog training records and logs did not require the trial judge to grant a continuance, as there were other discovery materials that might have opened the door to a challenging of the canine evidence.
Evidence of a prior canine indication was more probative than prejudicial, since the switching of vehicles in the interval and the deft's awareness of the narcotics traffic spoke to a continuing plan or scheme and rebutted the claim that he had been an unwitting courier.
Law enforcement testimony as to the usual trafficking operation wasn't impermissible overview testimony, as it came at the end of the trial, the witness was insulated from the particular case, and didn't reference any particulars. Lay testimony of this nature gleaned from on-the-job experience is helpful to the finder of fact, and therefore permissible.
Court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding to sentencing rather than considering competency; the determination had been made earlier,and nothing in the colloquy prior to sentencing indicated sufficient incapacity.
In a civil forfeiture proceeding in Admiralty, discovery sanctions are slightly more severe than in the civil analogue. The Court must weigh severity, repetition, and deliberateness of the violation must be considered. No prejudice need be shown. The court did not abuse its discretion in striking the late response and issuing default judgment against a vessel whose claimants asserted a Fifth Amendment exception to civil interrogatories, having previously asserted the exception in a motion to stay that was denied without prejudice. Although one of the claimants was being held in solitary confinement during the discovery period, the other claimant was not so encumbered.
Federal officer removal was appropriate, because at the time of removal, there was a colorable claim that the government was specific and complete, the contractor could not deviate from it, and it was implemented under the direct supervision of the government, and the government had more comprehensive knowledge of the risk at issue than did the contractor.
Challenges to discovery orders must identify the crucial evidence that would otherwise have been obtained.
As the expert testimony claiming exposure to the substance prior to the enactment of the statutory exclusive remedy was derived from factual assumptions rather than actual evidence, the statute provides the sole remedy.
Communication with an employee of a represented corporate party whose statements might be imputed to the corporate party wasn't an abuse of discretion, but as fee-shifting isn't in the state's rules, imposing a monetary sanction would require a finding of either bad faith or willful disobedience of a court's order.
Where a past admission against interest can't be rebutted due to a discovery sanction against the speaker, the statement must be taken at face value.
As the validity of the assignment of the interest hinged on the application of foreign law, a motion to consider foreign law in the proceeding was untimely when made at the summary judgement stage.
As the vested equity valuation was contractually assigned to the Board of Directors, a motion for a discovery continuance to reach outside auditors' valuations of the vested equity was untimely; an appeal challenging the exclusion of evidence must specifically identify the evidence and the legal standard.
Non-zero determinations of vested equity at time of hiring and in subsequent audits did not make the Board's determination of nil value unreasonable.
An unenforceable agreement to later agree on a severance agreement did not create any obligation on either party when severance happened prior to the formation of the agreement.
Claim of fraudulent inducement under state law requires actual reliance.
Misrepresentations of prior employment foreclose equitable relief in quantum meruit.
Discovery stipulation between parties during discovery was inappropriate, as the unilateral declaration of secret materials prevents the court from conducting the necessary public interest balancing when deciding whether the record should be sealed.
In determining probable cause for forfeiture, refusing to grant an adverse inference after discovery non-production is within the broad discretion afforded the court.
Deprivation of the commercial building's owners of the rights of management, including improvement, selection of and negotiation with tenants, and taking of rental revenues constituted a seizure.
Seizure of rental income is a form of taking the underlying property, not a taking of an interest in property, so the statute required appropriate procedures -- either a hearing or a finding of exigency.
Subsequent finding of probable cause doesn't retroactively justify the earlier taking of rents -- government must repay all rents seized prior to the court's finding.