Legal Opinion

Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. PB & A, Inc.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided March 13, 2017No. Case No. 16-cv-01152-WHOPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NON-PARTY URS’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 74

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Non-party URS Corporation moves for sanctions against defendant PB&A, Inc., seeking its costs of production in response to PB&A’s document subpoena, travel costs, and attorneys’ fees for bringing its motion. Motion for Sanctions (“Mot.”) (Dkt. No. 74). The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. PB&A shall reimburse URS for $383.46 in travel costs resulting from the untimely cancelled deposition. The remainder of URS’s requested…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stormans Inc v. Mary SeleckyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  2. Linder, David v. Calero-PortocarreroCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
  3. Williams v. City of DallasDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1998
  4. United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2014
  5. Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Blake v. NCMIC Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2023
  2. Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC v. SeibertDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2018
  3. Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2020
  4. Low, M. D. v. Omni Life Science, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2022
  5. Mi Familia Vota v. FontesDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API