Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. PB & A, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
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
- Stormans Inc v. Mary SeleckyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Linder, David v. Calero-PortocarreroCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2001
- Williams v. City of DallasDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1998
- United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2014
- Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995
3Cited by12 opinions
- Blake v. NCMIC Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2023
- Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC v. SeibertDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2018
- Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2020
- Low, M. D. v. Omni Life Science, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2022
- Mi Familia Vota v. FontesDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.