Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 10/19/2006

Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis

Citations

  • 469 F.3d 284
  • 25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 466
  • 66 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 550
  • 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 25889
  • 2006 WL 2990223

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that “the plain text” of Rule 37 suggests that the preclusion sanction is not “automatic” and that the trial court may impose other sanctions instead
  • stating that \ 'preclusion is [not] mandatory' under Rule 37(c)(1) [even where] 'the trial court finds that there is no substantial justification and the failure to disclose is not harmless.' \
  • explaining that damages computation is especially necessary when plaintiff seeks complex damages such as lost profits
  • finding that this factor weighed heavily toward exclusion when discovery had been closed for a year and a half and when there only a short time left before trial
  • recognizing a party’s obligation to provide supplemental disclosures as required under Rule 26(e)
  • upholding district court’s determination that sanctions were appropriate based on plaintiff’s failure to disclose lost profits damages theory until proposed pretrial order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Calabresi, Holwell, Miner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

51 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.