Klonoski v. Mahlab

How courts have described this case

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

• holding‘that evidence was not introduced “solely for impeachment purposes” where the evidence was “both impeaching and substantive”
• noting that evidence that is presented \solely for impeachment purposes\ is not subject to discovery under Rule 26(a)
• finding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) \clearly 2Rule 37(c)(1) provides in relevant part that: \A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a
• “… the weight of authority seems to be that such evidence is both impeaching and substantive and should be disclosed.”
• “[T]he required sanction in the ordinary case is mandatory preclusion”
• excluding evidence under Rule 37(c)(1) for violations of Rule 26(a)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).