Southern States Rack and Fixture, Incorporated v. Sherwin-Williams Company, and Keller Rigging & Construction Sc, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding [an expert] opinion due to [the plaintiff's] failure to timely disclose it”
• holding that opponent of evidence was “surprised” by expert opinion provided in untimely supplemental report because, prior to submission of supplemental report, expert had stated in his deposition that “he had completed his opinions”
• holding that opponent of evidence was “surprised” by expert opinion provided in untimely supplemental report because, prior to submission of supplemental report, expert had stated in his deposition that “he had completed his opinions”
• recognizing the district court’s “broad discretion to determine whether a nondisclosure of evidence is. substantially justified or harmless” under Rule 37(c)(1)
• recognizing the district court’s “broad discretion to determine whether a nondisclosure of evidence is substantially justified or harmless” under Rule 37(c)(1)
• observing that decision whether nondisclosure of evidence was \harmless\ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) is reviewed for abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).