Roberts v. Galen Of Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the district court did not err when it required that the substitute expert “not deviate from [the prior expert’s] conclusions”
• noting that the burden is on the potentially sanctioned party to prove substantial justification or harmlessness
• explaining that a hospital cannot be held liable for a breach of the duty to stabilize a patient absent its “actual knowledge” of an emergency medical condition that requires stabilization
• noting that this sanction “is automatic and mandatory unless the sanctioned party can show that its violation of Rule 26(a) was either justified or harmless[.]” (citation omitted)
• explaining that Rule 37(c)(1) gives district courts discretion to impose sanctions other than exclusion
• stating that Rule 37(c)(1) “mandates that a trial court punish a party for discovery violations in connection with Rule 26 unless the violation was harmless or is substantially justified” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).