Williams v. Johanns’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “by the fact that it is entirely counterfactual. At the beginning of the hearing, Magistrate Judge Facciola specifically informed counsel who was present at the hearing: I'd like the record to reflect that with me today in the courtroom is the presiding Judge, the Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and her law clerk and my law clerk, as well. See Transcript of Telephone Hearing, February 7, 2007 at 2. Needless to say, Plaintiffs' arguments provide no reason to overturn Magistrate Judge Facciola's Order and Opinion dated December 28, 2006. [3] B. Order and Memorandum Opinion dated July 26, 2007 Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Reconsider the December 28, 2006 Order and Opinion on January 30, 2007, asking the Magistrate Judge to strike the sanctions imposed for Plaintiffs' discovery failures. The Magistrate Judge denied the Motion because: In addition to failing to provide adequate supplemental answers and production of documents as ordered by invoking (a) the useless answer "will supplement”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 563 F. Supp. 2d 27 - Williams v. Johanns · Williams v. Johanns

2. “Discovery began in July of 2005. From that date to at least March of 2007, Plaintiffs engaged in no discovery whatsoever. More specifically, they did not give notice of their intention to take any depositions until those they noticed in the week before discovery is to end. The persons to now be deposed include: the President of the United States, the Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, the Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Director of the Office of Civil Rights. Plaintiffs contend that during their depositions they recounted a meeting with the President and then with other persons to be deposed and that these meetings provided evidence of persons with direct and relevant knowledge regarding matters before the Court. But, Plaintiffs have been aware of the meetings to which they refer since they occurred and cannot possibly say to have recently discovered their existence and significance ... Even with the multiple stays granted in this case, Plaintiffs’ waiting so late in the process to begin depositions hardly justifies the extension they seek.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 620 F. Supp. 2d 40 - Williams v. Vilsack

3. “Plaintiffs failed to adequately respond to Defendants’ interrogatory regarding potential lay and expert witnesses — and at least twice the failure was in direct violation of court orders. On April 27, 2006, when discovery responses were already two months overdue, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to supplement their response of ‘will supplement’ to the interrogatory on witnesses within ten days. They did not do so. Instead, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with the precise response the Court held insufficient in its previous order. Despite this violation, the Court provided another opportunity for Plaintiffs to ‘provide a list of all potential lay and expert witnesses known at this point in the case within ten days of this memorandum opinion or forego the introduction of witnesses at trial.’ Plaintiffs again failed to do so. The result, as clearly stated in the Court’s order, is the foregoing of the introduction of witnesses at trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 620 F. Supp. 2d 40 - Williams v. Vilsack