Iberdrola Energy Projects v. MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the expert’s violation of Rule 26 did not cause prejudice 11 the opposing party when a timely supplemental report was served
• explaining that these 27 five factors should be considered when deciding whether the untimely disclosure was harmless
• finding that a 20 court may consider the extent to which a discovery violation would result in “prejudice or 21 surprise” to the party against whom the evidence is offered
• applying this standard to determine 11 whether a discovery deadline violation is justified or harmless
• explaining that the following factors should be considered 23 when deciding whether a deficient disclosure is harmless: (1) prejudice or surprise to the party 24 against whom the evidence is offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice; (3
• noting factors courts use to determine justification or harmlessness include 6 || prejudice or surprise to the party against whom the evidence is offered and the likelihood of 7 | disruption of the trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).