Macaulay v. Anas

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that preclusion was appropriate where the party failed to “advance[] any real justification for [the] tardy emergence” of the expert report
• holding that preclusion of expert testimony involving a new theory of liability disclosed only a week before trial was permissible
• concluding that preclusion was appropriate where the party failed to “advance[] any real justification for [the] tardy emergence” of the expert report
• stating that “trial judges must work a complicated equation, balancing fairness to the parties with the need to manage crowded dockets”
• noting that the issue of expert preclusion “falls in the heartland of [a trial court’s] case management decisions” and is thus entitled to substantial deference
• discussing the district judge’s right to consider the impact of the sanction on the court’s docket

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).