Lewis' Admr. v. Bowling Green Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i), the 20 party “was entitled to a complete disclosure of all opinions—not a sneak preview of a moving 21 target”
• granting summary judgment to 22 defendant because plaintiff did not present evidence “regarding what a reasonably careful designer 23 or manufacturer would have done with respect [to the product]”
• striking supplemental expert declaration that offered new opinions after the close of discovery
• failure to respond to arguments raised in motion for summary judgment is concession as to those claims
• “Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs claims for breach of warranty. Plaintiff failed to address there arguments in his opposition brief, and therefore conceded these claims.”
• “Although 5 Rule 26(e) obliges a party to supplement or correct its disclosures upon information later 6 acquired, this does not give license to sandbag one’s opponent with claims and issues which 7 should have been included in the expert witness’ report ....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).