Leerdam v. Newjersey

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the plain text” of Rule 37 suggests that the preclusion sanction is not “automatic” and that the trial court may impose other sanctions instead
• stating that \ 'preclusion is [not] mandatory' under Rule 37(c)(1) [even where] 'the trial court finds that there is no substantial justification and the failure to disclose is not harmless.' \
• explaining that damages computation is especially necessary when plaintiff seeks complex damages such as lost profits
• finding that this factor weighed heavily toward exclusion when discovery had been closed for a year and a half and when there only a short time left before trial
• recognizing a party’s obligation to provide supplemental disclosures as required under Rule 26(e)
• upholding district court’s determination that sanctions were appropriate based on plaintiff’s failure to disclose lost profits damages theory until proposed pretrial order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).