Oakley, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a “scheduling order is an important tool necessary for the orderly preparation of a case for trial”
• observing that a “Scheduling Order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril”
• plaintiffs’ disclosure of healthcare entities did not satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(A); plaintiffs were required to “identify the particular person at those entities who will offer expert testimony”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).