Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., Appeal of Greenspan, Jaffe & Rosenblatt, Leon J. Greenspan, Paul D. Jaffe and Victor E. Rosenblatt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it \stretches the imagination\ to 32 argue that the sanctioned party did not have notice following multiple rounds of briefing and two appeals to the district court
• holding that sanctions imposed by magistrate judge for discovery abuses are nondispositive
• holding that a magistrate judge “may issue orders regarding nondispositive pretrial matters”
• holding that “[m]onetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for noncompliance with discovery orders usually are committed to the discretion of the magistrate [judge], reviewable by the district court under the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard”
• finding that matters involving pretrial discovery are generally considered “‘nondispositive’ of the litigation” and thus are subject to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard” on review by a district court
• finding that matters involving pretrial discovery are generally considered “‘nondispositive’ of the litigation” and thus are subject to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard” on review by a district court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).