James v. Yasunaga

How courts have described this case

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

• supporting the trial court’s enforcement of its discovery schedule and rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that trial was still three months away as “irrelevant” if a disclosure schedule is “to have any force or effect”
• while reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the court declined to consider portions of a deposition because the record was insufficient to manifest that the offered portions were, in fact, brought to the attention of the trial court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).