Thomas v. Paulson

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to consider an affidavit because the witness was not mentioned at all in plaintiffs deposition, answers to interrogatories, or Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures
• finding it would not be appropriate to reopen discovery where the plaintiff “had ample opportunity to [identify a witness during discovery and take his deposition], but failed to do so”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).