Scibilia v. Dulles

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the plaintiff’s disclosure generically identifying over 300 potential witnesses was insufficient; a “party cannot defeat the purposes of Rule 26(a)(1) simply by providing a laundry list of undifferentiated witnesses. . . . .“the Rule 26(e
• imposing the fees and costs of taking the discovery depositions of witnesses testifying at trial as a sanction for providing initial disclosures that lacked the detail and clarity to permit informed decision making about witness depositions
• “While the court has found no cases that address this precise issue, the objectives underlying Rule 26(a)(1
• Rule 26(a) not satisfied when counsel did not interview listed brokers and investors, and resorted to giving same generic disclosure for every broker and note holder
• Rule 26(e) “disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to allow [the opposing party] to make intelligent decisions regarding how [it] will efficiently use the limited number of depositions permitted under the Rule 16 scheduling order”
• “a party’s failure to disclose is substantially justified where the non-moving party has a reasonable basis in law and fact, and where there exists a genuine dispute concerning compliance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).