Daval Steel Products v. M/V Fakredine

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that preclusion of evidence at trial can be an appropriate sanction for discovery abuses
• explaining that warnings are not “an absolute condition precedent” but “often precede the imposition of serious sanctions”
• holding financial transactions of prior years were relevant where plaintiffs were not only named in complaint, but also had judgments against them
• affirming the district court’s granting of the plaintiffs claim and precluding a defendant from presenting evidence in opposition to it, in light of that defendant’s “willful violation of the court’s discovery order and prior obstruction of discovery”
• finding the district court “well within its authority in prescribing sanctions when it was “clear that [defendant] failed to comply with a valid order of the court requiring that a deposition be conducted[.]”
• stating that issue-preclusion is “strong medicine”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).