Skip to main content
Tenth Circuit· 3/14/2001

Rodriguez v. IBP, Inc.

Citations

  • 243 F.3d 1221
  • 49 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 122
  • 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1341
  • 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3904
  • 2001 WL 252734

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).

Judges: Henry, Murphy, Mills

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Rodriguez v. IBP, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.