Rodriguez v. IBP, 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 the imposed sanction served “to protect the truth-seeking procedures of discovery, and the [non-complying party] himself eschewed all opportunities to avoid the sanction”
• expressing the concern that “a post-trial discovery order would never be appealable until a party complies”
• “This court will not make arguments for Rodriguez that he did not make himself.”
• “This court will not make arguments for [appellant] that he did not make himself.”
• “Rodriguez's attempt to characterize the district court's order as a reopening of discovery belies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rodriguez had a continuing duty to disclose information […] even after discovery closed.”
• “In determining whether to treat the motion as a notice of appeal, we examine whether the moving party intended to seek appellate review and whether it provided sufficient notice to the parties and courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).