In re Petition for Naturalization by Berenyi

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when the plaintiff experienced “significant changed circumstance [in health] constituting sufficient ‘good cause’ to warrant an independent eye examination”
• holding Rule 35 examination request was untimely because it came after the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses
• finding that Rule 26 and Rule 35 should be read in conjunction with each 4 Banner requests that all other discovery be controlled by the October 10, 2025, deadline. ECF 264 at 12. other
• stating that supplementation may be proper after the expert designation deadline if the court determines that the facts obtained and any opinions stemming from a Rule 35 examination were “not available at the time of the initial disclosure”
• explaining supplementation may be proper if the supplemental facts were not available at the time of initial disclosure
• reviewing case law holding that a proper supplemental report should rely on previously unknown or unavailable information

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).