-
872 F.2d 1416·
9th Cir.·
1989-04-19
·cited 422×
The court held that the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), applies retroactively to disregard Doe defendants for removal purposes, and that the plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants failed to establish fraudul
-
890 F.2d 371·
11th Cir.·
1989-12-11
·cited 204×
The court held that the appeal of interlocutory sanctions was premature, as the district court had not conclusively determined the issues of privilege waiver or the final amounts of monetary sanctions, and thus appellate jurisdiction was lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-
702 F.2d 770·
9th Cir.·
1983-03-28
·cited 52×
The amended contempt order is civil, not criminal, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing it.
-
729 F.2d 469·
7th Cir.·
1984-02-27
·cited 48×
A district court may impose sanctions under Rule 37(b) even without a formal motion to compel, provided the party has received adequate notice of discovery obligations and an opportunity to be heard. The court did not abuse its discretion in assessing costs and fees against the l
-
647 F.2d 912·
9th Cir.·
1981-06-08
·cited 43×
The court held that the appellant failed to adequately support his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions, including dismissal of counterclaims and entry
-
283 F.2d 730·
2d Cir.·
1960-11-02
·cited 32×
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice, as the plaintiffs had complied with the order to appear for deposition.
-
609 F.2d 1128·
5th Cir.·
1980-01-15
·cited 27×
The court held that a federal court in a diversity action must give full faith and credit to a foreign money judgment, but enforcing future alimony installments is governed by the law of the enforcing state, and sanctions for discovery violations are permissible under Federal Rul
-
680 F.2d 743·
11th Cir.·
1982-07-16
·cited 18×
The court held that an order granting a post-judgment discovery motion is not an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-
502 F.2d 506·
5th Cir.·
1974-10-07
·cited 17×
The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as sanctions under Rule 37(b) were not warranted because the interrogatories regarding the source and ownership of the cash were not relevant to the plaintiff's mandamus action based on postal r
-
679 F.2d 153·
9th Cir.·
1982-06-08
·cited 16×
The court held that conditioning the government's expert testimony on payment of $10,000 was an improper monetary sanction against the United States.
-
526 F.2d 1338·
8th Cir.·
1975-12-04
·cited 16×
A district court cannot impose sanctions under Rule 37(b) against a non-party for failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum; such actions must proceed under Rule 45(f), and due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
-
915 F.2d 313·
7th Cir.·
1990-10-05
·cited 14×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as a sanction for their contumacious conduct and failure to comply with court rules and orders.
-
519 F.2d 352·
6th Cir.·
1975-07-01
·cited 14×
A district court's discovery order compelling production of documents is not a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, as effective review can be obtained after sanctions are imposed for non-compliance.
-
870 F.2d 368·
7th Cir.·
1989-02-28
·cited 10×
The court held that the informer's privilege protects the identities of individuals who provided witness statements to the Secretary of Labor during an investigation, and the Union failed to demonstrate a substantial need for this information to overcome the privilege.
-
925 F.2d 214·
7th Cir.·
1991-02-19
·cited 8×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution and in denying the motion to reinstate under Rule 59(e) due to the plaintiff's pattern of delay and inconsistent explanations.
-
855 F.2d 233·
5th Cir.·
1988-09-20
·cited 8×
The court held that while the finding of willfulness was proper, some evidence used to prove jukebox ownership was inadmissible hearsay, requiring reversal of findings based solely on that evidence. The court remanded for reconsideration of damages based on admissible evidence.
-
636 F.2d 745·
D.C. Cir.·
1980-11-14
·cited 6×
A court-ordered award of attorneys' fees under Rule 37(b) belongs to the client, not the attorneys, when the retainer agreement does not specifically allocate such awards to the attorneys and the attorneys have already been compensated according to the agreement.
-
577 F.2d 43·
8th Cir.·
1978-05-30
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court exceeded its judicial power by issuing a discovery sanctions order that improperly limited the EEOC's evidence, and therefore issued a writ of mandamus to withdraw the order.
-
898 F.2d 1200·
6th Cir.·
1990-03-28
·cited 3×
-
933 F.2d 1462·
8th Cir.·
1991-05-28
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Tribe's quiet title action with prejudice due to the Tribe's intentional and willful noncompliance with court orders and rules.
-
898 F.2d 1018·
5th Cir.·
1990-04-23
·cited 2×
The court held that striking the City's answer and entering a default judgment for discovery abuse was an abuse of discretion, as the misconduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or willful abuse required for such a severe sanction.
-
709 F.2d 524·
9th Cir.·
1983-06-24
·cited 1×
The court held that the speech or debate privilege protects questions about a former Congressman's sources of information, but not questions about republication of material outside Congress. The court also affirmed the denial of sanctions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-16
The court granted the defendant's motion to compel discovery because the plaintiff failed to respond, rendering the motion unopposed and well-taken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-06
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from Choice Hotels, and granted Defendant WHG's motion to compel Plaintiff's expert deposition and awarded fees against Plaintiff's counsel.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-10
The court granted the motion to compel the deposition of non-party witness Omar Alston, ordering it to be rescheduled and videotaped, but denied requests for the deposition to be held at the courthouse with a U.S. Marshal present.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-03
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's first motion to compel, finding Defendants' use of Rule 33(d) inadequate for certain interrogatories and their objections to requests for production to be substantially justified. The second motion to compel was denied with
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-12-23
The court held that HKS's arguments regarding proportionality and its alleged agreement to limit production were unpersuasive and waived, and that HKS violated a prior court order compelling discovery.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-04
The court granted the defendant's renewed motion to compel the plaintiff to provide answers and responses to discovery requests.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-09-24
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery because the defendant failed to respond, rendering the motion unopposed.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-12-14
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery and granted Defendant's motion for a protective order regarding athletic association subpoenas.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-07
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to compel discovery, ordering the plaintiff to provide outstanding discovery responses but denying the request for fees and costs.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-01
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion, awarding partial attorneys' fees for a prior discovery motion but denying the request for involuntary dismissal without prejudice.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-01-23
The court held that the supplemental expert report was untimely and violated prior court orders, therefore it was stricken.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-12-05
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve limited financial worth discovery for punitive damages, finding minimal good cause and excusable neglect, but denied their motion for sanctions against the defendant for inadequate corporate representative depositions.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-11-22
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion for discovery sanctions, allowing Defendant to supplement summary judgment filings but denying sanctions and expenses.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-20
In this litigation over alleged breaches of non-competition and confidentiality agreements, the district court denied Centennial Bank's motion for contempt against Davey for failing to comply with electronically stored information (ESI) orders, granted in part Davey and Murrin's
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-11-18
The court held that while plaintiffs need not amend their disclosures, they must supplement them and provide supporting documentation for damages, and the defendant's request for a stay of discovery is denied.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-02-25
PETA sued a Florida zoo (Dade City's Wild Things) alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act through improper treatment of tigers, but after the zoo owners deliberately transferred all their tigers away from the facility in violation of court-ordered discovery obligations,
-
997 F. Supp. 2d 741·
M.D. Fla.·
2000-09-29
The court held that a plaintiff's willful failure to cooperate in discovery, particularly regarding its legal existence and capacity to sue, warranted dismissal of the action with prejudice as a sanction.
-
996 F.2d 962·
8th Cir.·
1993-06-29