State ex rel. L. M.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding 21 that sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1) were not justified because the party complied with Rule 22 26(a)(1)(A)(i)’s disclosure requirements
• holding the district 4 court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness where the witness had been 5 identified and surprise or prejudice to the opposing was unlikely, because the content of the 6 testimony was identified in the operative complaint
• one 11 of the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(c)(1) is that “when a witness is not disclosed by a 12 party then, as a sanction, that witness cannot testify”
• “Ninth Circuit caselaw interpreting Rule 37(c)(1) makes clear that exclusion of evidence under Rule 37(c)(1) is not appropriate if the failure to disclose the required information is substantially justified or harmless.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).