Anthony Quevedo v. Trans-Pacific Shipping, Inc. Bhp-International Marine Transport

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court 18 did not abuse its discretion in disregarding an untimely expert witness report that was not 19 provided until the plaintiff submitted it in opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary 20 judgment
• noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) provides that party opposing summary judgment must “set forth specific facts that show there is a genuine issue for trial.”
• refusing to consider expert's report because it was filed one-and-a-half months late and plaintiff could have asked for an extension of time
• affirming exclusion of expert testimony when 25 the expert was disclosed twenty days late, and the expert reports were six weeks 26 late
• affirming the exclusion of plaintiff’s expert because plaintiff designated the expert and disclosed the report in an untimely manner
• affirming preclusion of witness due to the plaintiff’s 23 failure to justify his disregard for court’s discovery deadline

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).