Ramos, Eric

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party’s meritless motions that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings and “wast[ed] . . . everyone’s time” were sanctionable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
• recognizing that district courts have “broad discretion in the choice of sanctions”
• finding that court may rely on common sense to determine that discovery requests are unduly burdensome
• holding a magistrate judge’s order limiting the scope of discovery to exclude a deposition did not prejudice the appellant’s case because the deposition would not have supplied the necessary testimony her claim was missing
• finding that party seeking to limit discovery must “establish grounds for not providing the discovery that are specific and factual; the party cannot meet its burden by making conclusory allegations as to undue burden.”
• affirming the district court’s imposition of sanctions where the party “attempts to relitigate already decided issues . . . unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).