JOSUE LOPEZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the district court correctly determined that the revised report [was] not a Rule 26(e) supplement”
• holding that imposing a Rule 37(c) sanction before the proponent of the evidence attempts to use it in support of its position on a motion or at a hearing or trial is error
• holding district court erred by extending the deadline to disclose expert reports after that deadline had expired without applying “the mandatory good-cause standard under Rule 16(b)(4)”
• holding district court erred in granting plaintiff leave to file a late expert report where plaintiff failed to show good cause to extend the expert disclosure deadline
• concluding a “revised report is not a Rule 26(e) supplement” where there was no evidence the party “learned of information that was previously unknown or unavailable to them”
• holding the trial court committed reversible error where there was no good cause to permit the late disclosure of new expert opinions after the court-imposed deadline under Rule 16

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).