Sunkist Drinks, Inc. v. California Fruit Growers Exchange

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[t]he analysis under Rule 16(f) and Rule 37(b) is the same”
• recognizing that “[t]he analysis under Rule 16(f) and Rule 37(b) is the same”
• finding plaintiff’s concealment of evidence, false deposition testimony, verified misleading and evasive discovery responses, and failure to correct inaccurate responses amounted to bad faith
• dismissing complaint and awarding costs where, inter alia, plaintiff and his counsel “knowingly offered (or allowed to be offered
• collecting cases and describing consideration of sanctions under various Rules and inherent authority
• finding it “[un]necessary to warn a party that offering knowingly false deposition testimony or evasive discovery responses, or the concealment of highly relevant discovery, might compromise one’s ability to continue to litigate in federal court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).