Shares

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that courts should not presume that a reference to an individual equates to Rule 26(a)(l)(A)(i) disclosure and that the “otherwise made known” language of Rule 26(e)(1)(A
• requiring a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement include “the name of every owner, member, and partner of the party, proceeding up the chain of ownership until the name of every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest in the party has been identified”
• “[K]nowledge of the existence of a person is distinctly different from knowledge that the person will be relied upon as a fact witness.”
• “There comes a time when an opposing party is entitled to make informed decisions and to rely on the statements (or silence) of the other side.”
• the non- moving party has the burden of showing they were substantially justified in failing to comply with applicable rules and finding no reasonable basis in law or fact showing the party’s failure to disclose was substantially justified

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).