Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning appellees' counsel for appellees' failure to attend depositions but the special master monitoring discovery found counsel's behavior unobjectionable
• holding that the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning appellees’ counsel for appellees’ failure to attend depositions but the special master monitoring discovery found counsel’s behavior unobjectionable
• finding that the ALJ sufficiently explained his reasons for 25 26 7 The ALJ considered, as one of many reported activities, Plaintiff’s trip to Mexico in June 2017. (AR 22–23.
• concluding trial court acted within its discretion when imposing joint and several liability for Rule 37(b) monetary sanctions where “each [plaintiff corporation] had disregarded discovery orders” and evidence suggested that the “corporations were not independent entities”
• upholding fees awarded under Rule 37(b)(2), including for motion drafting, where defendant’s failure required plaintiff “to seek further court orders”
• finding prejudice where party had been unable to depose 16 more than one of the representatives of the opposing party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).