United States v. Knohl

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[n]o party seriously disputes” plaintiff’s diligence where plaintiff 26 “propounded no discovery, did not designate experts, and failed to respond to [defendant’s] 27 discovery requests in a timely fashion.”
• noting the 24 good cause standard is primarily informed by the movant’s diligence in attempting to fully 25 comply with the deadlines set by the court
• if plaintiffs have shown 11 “ordinary negligence on the part of [their] attorneys, then [they] must be held accountable 12 for [their] lawyers’ lack of diligence”
• if a party “has 7 shown that its lawyers were guilty of gross negligence or abandonment, then [] a finding 8 of extraordinary circumstances or good cause, justifying a modification of the scheduling 9 order, would be warranted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).