Hoffman v. Construction Protective Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that exclusion of evidence is appropriate unless the failure to disclose was 23 substantially justified or harmless
• discussing that the late disclosure of damages would have most likely required 21 the court to create a new briefing schedule and perhaps re-open discovery, modifications of 22 which were not harmless
• finding no substantial justification where plaintiffs argued that the “right to individualized discovery” in the class action context was “unsettled”
• affirming exclusion of damages evidence at 19 trial because “[d]isclosure of damage calculations was mandated under Rule 26(a)”
• affirming district court’s exclusion of damages evidence because “[d]isclosure of damage calculations was mandated under Rule 26(a)”
• affirming a district-court order excluding the plaintiffs’ damages evidence because they failed to disclose 22 computations of those damages before the pretrial conference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).