Clemens v. Morris

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that preclusion was not appropriate where the court could grant a continuance by allowing additional discovery and shifting some of the costs to the noncompliant party
• explaining that “precluding Plaintiffs from pursuing $12-plus million in damages would seem a particularly severe result” and declining to preclude the evidence in question
• noting that, under Rule 37(c), the court has discretion to impose “less severe sanctions” than preclusion
• stating that sanctions may not be imposed when the failure to disclose is harmless, and that “‘[h]armlessness’ means an absence of prejudice to the defendant.” (alterations accepted and citation omitted)
• noting that the rule “does not merely require a plaintiff to describe its damages in general terms . . . [but] to provide a ‘computation’ of each category of damages, and to produce the documents on which that computation is based”
• ordering plaintiff to pay reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in making the motion to compel and costs associated with the additional discovery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).