Lori David v. Caterpillar, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that courts have broad discretion in determining whether a party's failure to comply with Rule 26(a) is harmless
• holding that jury could consider actions of those who did not make final de- cisión when they made recommendations for promotions
• holding that liability can be based on the bias of employees who have the duty to recommend other employees for promotion, where the decision maker said he “received the necessary information” for decisions from those recommending employees
• stating that the sanction of exclusion “is automatic and mandatory unless the sanctioned party can show that its violation of Rule 26(a) was either justified or harmless”
• holding that liability can be based on the bias of employees who have the duty to recommend other employ- ees for promotion, where the decision maker said he “received the necessary information” for decisions from those recommending employees
• explaining that the second factor the court considers is the ability to cure the prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).