Slapin v. Slapin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the duty to produce continues even after the discovery period and granting motion to compel
• noting that Rule 26(e) provides for court-ordered supplementation and rejecting argument that exclusion represents sole remedy for Rule 26(e) violation
• “The obligation to update and supplement responses [to discovery requests] continues even after the close of discovery.” (internal alterations omitted) (quoting Allen v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 79-CV-1076, 1985 WL 191, at (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 1985))
• “[t]he duty to supplement continues even after the discovery period has closed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).