Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Discovery Rulings

50 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  871 F.2d 179· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were untimely filed under Title VII because she failed to demonstrate a discriminatory act within the 240-day limitations period or sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
• Dicky D. Voegeli and Sharon Voegeli v. Harvard R. Lewis & Methodist Hosp.
  568 F.2d 89· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 80×
  The court held that while the jury verdict for the hospital was supported, the trial court's rulings on discovery and cross-examination unfairly prejudiced the plaintiffs' case against the doctor, necessitating a new trial for claims against him.
• RAE v. Union Bank
  725 F.2d 478· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and the pendent state claims, and did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery.
• Aviation Specialties, Inc. v. United Techs. Corp.
  568 F.2d 1186· 5th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in curtailing discovery and properly granted summary judgment on all antitrust claims due to a lack of significant probative evidence.
• RAY v. Bird & SON & Asset Realization Co., Inc.
  519 F.2d 1081· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing further discovery.
• Am. KEY Corp. v. Cole Nat'l Corp.
  762 F.2d 1569· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery rulings and did not err in determining there was no genuine issue of material fact, affirming the summary judgments.
• Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. J.B.
  675 So. 2d 241· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-06-19 ·cited 39×
  HRS appeals a $14.5 million jury verdict for negligence in child abuse investigation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony about damages based on information disclosed after the discovery cutoff date. The appellate court found abuse of discre
• Holt v. United States
  272 F.2d 272· 9th Cir.· 1959-11-05 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of willful tax evasion and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions for a bill of particulars and discovery.
• Perel v. Vanderford
  547 F.2d 278· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on probable cause for a border strip search, nor in limiting discovery or admitting certain evidence, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• United States v. Armocida
  515 F.2d 49· 3d Cir.· 1975-04-11 ·cited 33×
  The court held that recordings made with one-party consent are admissible in federal court even if they violate state law, and that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction.
• United States v. Erick Mitchell
  778 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that transporting a woman across state lines for the purpose of rape constitutes an "immoral purpose" under the Mann Act, and that successive federal prosecution after a state acquittal does not violate double jeopardy.
• Williamson v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  815 F.2d 368· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-29 ·cited 29×
  The court held that claims against the government and its officials under the Federal Tort Claims Act were barred by sovereign immunity due to discretionary function exceptions, misrepresentation exceptions, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Individual officials wer
• Virgil L. Hayden, M.D. v. Calvin Bracy, M.D.
  744 F.2d 1338· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a private hospital's disciplinary actions do not constitute state action for § 1983 claims and that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege an effect on interstate commerce for Sherman Act claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of defamation and con
• Hollander v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
  895 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery of information regarding other terminated employees over 40, which was relevant to the plaintiff's pretext argument for discriminatory discharge. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on the
• United States v. Liebert
  519 F.2d 542· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the non-filing lists are not statutorily protected from disclosure, their production was unreasonable under Rule 16(b) due to the availability of alternative discovery methods that protect individual privacy.
• Coughlin v. LEE
  946 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-12 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the deputies' leak of evidence did not address a matter of public concern, thus affirming the directed verdict on their free speech claim. However, the court reversed the discovery rulings concerning their political association claim, remanding for reconsidera
• York v. Tenn. Crushed Stone Ass'n
  684 F.2d 360· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the defendant trade association, with only two employees, was not an "employer" under the ADEA, as it did not meet the 20-employee threshold, nor was it an "agent" of its members or an "integrated enterprise" with them. The court also found no abuse of discret
• First Pac. Bancorp, Inc. v. BRO
  847 F.2d 542· 9th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appellants failed to allege sufficient predicate acts for a RICO claim and failed to demonstrate actual damages, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Jett v. Sunderman
  840 F.2d 1487· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that summary judgment for Union Bank on all claims was proper, but summary judgment for National Union on the Rule 10b-5 claim was inappropriate, requiring remand.
• O'Neal v. Riceland Foods
  684 F.2d 577· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory firing and that the employer articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination. The court also affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment on the discriminatory hiri
• Mayo v. Tri-Bell Indus., Inc.
  787 F.2d 1007· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Texas modified comparative negligence statute applies to nonpecuniary damages in wrongful death claims, barring recovery when the deceased's negligence exceeds that of the tortfeasor. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
• United States v. Karol Numen Bailey
  550 F.2d 1099· 8th Cir.· 1977-03-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel the disclosure of a third purchaser's name, as the defendant failed to show prejudice or the favorable nature of the testimony.
• THE Florida BAR v. Gwynn
  94 So. 3d 425· Fla.· 2012-02-16 ·cited 15×
  The Florida Bar disciplined attorney Mary Alice Gwynn for misconduct in federal bankruptcy court proceedings, including filing frivolous motions, making false statements, and violating court orders. The Florida Supreme Court approved the referee's findings of guilt on 15 rule vio
• Rollins Burdick Hunter OF NEW York, Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., Inc.
  502 So. 2d 959· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-02-03 ·cited 15×
  An insurance broker (RBH) appealed a judgment for the insured (Euroclassics) in a coverage dispute involving an airplane used for drug smuggling. The court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying RBH's motion to compel discovery when the insured in
• Price v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  931 F.2d 162· 1st Cir.· 1991-04-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for GMC, as the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of a defect attributable to GMC's negligence that caused the accident.
• THE Florida BAR v. Berthiaume
  78 So. 3d 503· Fla.· 2011-11-08 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Bar disciplined attorney Michelle Erin Berthiaume for creating and mailing a fraudulent subpoena to a bank in an attempt to obtain her client's financial records without legal authority. The Florida Supreme Court found her guilty of violating rules prohibiting dishone
• SMS Data Prods. Grp., Inc. v. The United States
  900 F.2d 1553· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that FDC's bid was not materially imbalanced and that SMS's appeal was frivolous, warranting double costs.
• Pub. Loan Co., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  803 F.2d 82· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Deposit Insurance Act's § 1823(e) bars oral accord and satisfaction defenses against the FDIC, and that the appellants failed to raise a material fact issue regarding consideration for the promissory notes.
• In re Bishop v. Rewald
  779 F.2d 471· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment for petitioning creditors, finding the debtor was generally not paying its debts as they became due.
• White v. Wirtz
  402 F.2d 145· 10th Cir.· 1968-10-28 ·cited 7×
  The court held that defendants' employees were engaged in the production of goods for commerce under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery.
• Krim v. Banctexas Grp., Inc.
  989 F.2d 1435· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment without permitting further discovery, as the plaintiff failed to adequately explain how additional discovery would enable him to oppose the motion.
• Cormier v. Pennzoil Exploration & Prod. Co.
  969 F.2d 1559· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the manufacturer of the defective part, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying a con
• In re Airport CAR Rental Antitrust Litig. Trans Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. The HERTZ Corp.
  766 F.2d 1292· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact required for summary judgment.
• Duke v. The Univ. OF Tex. AT EL Paso
  729 F.2d 994· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by unduly restricting discovery, which prejudiced the plaintiff's ability to obtain class certification and prove her individual discrimination claim.
• Woods v. McGUIRE
  954 F.2d 388· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the United States was properly substituted as the defendant under the Westfall Act and that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA).
• Ardrey v. United Parcel Serv.
  798 F.2d 679· 4th Cir.· 1986-08-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting discovery to individual claims, as sufficient information was provided to develop evidence related to those claims, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case.
• Gillin v. Internal Revenue Serv.
  980 F.2d 819· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the IRS adequately responded to the FOIA request, either by producing documents, demonstrating they were unidentifiable, or proving they were exempt from disclosure.
• United States v. Garth GUY
  978 F.2d 934· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government is not equitably estopped from recovering an erroneous tax refund based on oral assurances from an IRS agent, and that the defendant was not denied discovery rights.
• Turnage v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  953 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a discovery request for a circuit breaker inspection, but erred in its jury instructions regarding a defective shut-off mechanism, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial on that claim.
• Darel D. Viles v. Ball
  872 F.2d 491· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board for Correction of Naval Records was lawfully constituted and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery.
• McGOWAN v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.
  794 F.2d 361· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying broad discovery requests and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the employer's articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring her were pretextual.
• Ladd v. LAW & Tech. Press
  762 F.2d 809· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the copyright deposit requirement is a constitutional condition for copyright, not an unconstitutional taking or burden on the press, and that summary judgment was proper without further discovery.
• United States v. Alphonso R. Randolph
  456 F.2d 132· 3d Cir.· 1972-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the denial of the discovery motion was not an abuse of discretion.
• Feingold v. Cardinale
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-12-16
  The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's order quashing nonparty subpoenas, finding no clear error or misapplication of law.
• Gonzalez v. U.S. Dep't of Agric.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-12-02
  The district court held that a magistrate judge erred in granting a protective order to preclude a deposition, as no recognized privilege prevented the deposition and the moving party did not demonstrate good cause.
• Brown v. Ansafone Contact Ctrs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-30
  The court granted the defendant's motion to compel discovery responses from non-responsive opt-in plaintiffs, ordering them to comply within a limited time or face dismissal.
• Mattoon v. City OF Pittsfield
  980 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-11-20
  The court held that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) preempts federal common law nuisance and section 1983 claims, and that citizen suits under the SDWA require allegations of an ongoing violation, not merely past harm.
• Mills v. Damson OIL Corp.
  931 F.2d 346· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-21
  The court affirmed the summary judgment for the defendant on fraud and conversion claims, and the bench trial judgment for recovery of erroneously-made payments, finding no genuine issue of material fact and no error in the proceedings.
• Mars Equip. Corp. v. United States
  580 F.2d 248· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-21
  Treasury Regulation § 48.4181-2(c) is a reasonable definition of 'firearm' for excise tax purposes, including antique muzzle-loading guns and replicas.
• Clay Francisco v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  363 F.2d 1019· 8th Cir.· 1966-08-10
  The court held that the trial court did not err in sustaining the appellee's motion for judgment and denying the appellant's discovery requests, as the appellant failed to establish a valid claim for relief.