Los Angeles News Service Robert Tur v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Court-Room Television Network

Ninth Circuit

Los Angeles News Service Robert Tur v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Court-Room Television Network

313 F.3d 1093, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26210, 2002 WL 31840619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 2002

Docket00-56470, 00-57000

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 313 F.3d 1093 (Los Angeles News Service Robert Tur v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Court-Room Television Network) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Los Angeles News Service Robert Tur v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. Court-Room Television Network, 313 F.3d 1093, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26210, 2002 WL 31840619 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN.

Prior report: 305 F.3d 924

ORDER

The opinion filed September 16, 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows:

Slip Op. at 13984 [305 F.3d at 935]: Add a footnote on line 3 of the first full paragraph after the word “presses” that reads:

“CBS also claims that the videotape should be excluded as an evidentiary sanction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) (imposing sanctions where a party “fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a)”). However, at the time this action was filed, the Central District of California had chosen not to incorporate the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Therefore, CBS’s argument that the videotape should be excluded as a sanction fails because the district court, by local rule, had not adopted the mandatory disclosures that would otherwise be re *1094 quired under Rule 26(a) and subject to sanction under Rule 37(c)(1).”

With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge SILVERMAN.

Prior report: 305 F.3d 924

ORDER

The opinion filed September 16, 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows:

Slip Op. at 13984 [305 F.3d at 935]: Add a footnote on line 3 of the first full paragraph after the word “presses” that reads:

“CBS also claims that the videotape should be excluded as an evidentiary sanction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1) (imposing sanctions where a party “fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a)”). However, at the time this action was filed, the Central District of California had chosen not to incorporate the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Therefore, CBS’s argument that the videotape should be excluded as a sanction fails because the district court, by local rule, had not adopted the mandatory disclosures that would otherwise be re *1094 quired under Rule 26(a) and subject to sanction under Rule 37(c)(1).”

With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED.

Mattel Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Walking Mountain Productions, a California Business Entity Tom Forsythe, an Individual D/B/A Walking Mountain Productions, Mattel Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Walking Mountain Productions, a California Business Entity Tom Forsythe, an Individual D/B/A Walking Mountain Productions

353 F.3d 792 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions

353 F.3d 792 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Passport Video

349 F.3d 622 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 F.3d 1093, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26210, 2002 WL 31840619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/los-angeles-news-service-robert-tur-v-cbs-broadcasting-inc-court-room-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack