Law Commons^™

Iron Man Of The Rules, Patrick E. Higginbotham

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

To grasp Professor Cooper's contribution to rulemaking, it is helpful to review issues that the Advisory Committee confronted during his tenure. I will focus on the first four of his twenty years of service.

Ed Cooper, Rule 56, And Charles E. Clark's Fountain Of Youth, Steven S. Gensler

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Nobody had a greater impact on the formulation of the original Civil Rules than Clark. His role as both the principal architect2 and the principal draftsman3 of the Civil Rules is well known. As Professor Wright once put it, although the Civil Rules were a joint effort, "the end product bears the unmistakable Clark stamp."4 But Clark started shaping the Civil Rules even before drafting began.5 Initially, Chief Justice Hughes thought the civil rules project should be limited to creating rules for actions at law (leaving in place-and separate-the existing equity rules).6 A passionate advocate for merging law and equity …

Professor Edward Cooper: The Quintessential Reporter, Mary Kay Kane

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Ed Cooper's twenty-year service as the Chief Reporter for the Civil Rules Advisory Committee deserves special recognition and tribute not only because of its longevity-which is remarkable in and of itself-but more particularly, because of the scope and depth of the rule changes he has helped to shepherd into law.

Some Very Personal Reflections On The Rules, Rulemaking, And Reporters, Arthur R. Miller

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

My entry into the world of federal rulemaking was one of those unpredictable but welcome fortuities of life. In early 1961, more than a half century ago, I was a happy and progressing associate in a prominent medium-sized, Wall Street, New York City law firm. Columbia Law School approached me to be the Associate Director of its newly formed Project on International Procedure. They dangled several attractive incentives: I could try my hand at teaching some civil procedure; hobnob with the giants of the Columbia faculty, like Herb Wechsler, Walter Gellhorn, Maury Rosenberg, and Jack Weinstein; and take my first …

Is Now The Time For Simplified Rules Of Civil Procedure, Paul V. Niemeyer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Unfortunately, any objective evaluation of current federal civil process will inevitably lead to the conclusion that the process is functioning inadequately in its purpose of discharging justice speedily and inexpensively. One need only ask any trial lawyer whether he can try a medium-sized commercial dispute to judgment in a federal court in less than three years and at a cost of less than six figures. Is the iconic appellation of "making a federal case out of a dispute" not the ultimate condemnation of current judicial process in federal courts? Can we understand the private bar's flight from federal courts to …

Professor Ed Cooper: Zen Minimalist, Linda S. Mullenix

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In celebration of his twentieth year as the Reporter for the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, I write to contribute some modest reflections on Professor Cooper's tenure as Advisory Committee Reporter. My comments are those of an academic who had the opportunity to observe the Advisory Committee for nearly a decade, but they are largely the comments of an outsider. Readers might be disappointed to find that there is no dish or inside baseball here.

Protecting The Right Of Citizens To Aggregate Small Claims Against Businesses, Paul D. Carrington

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Two years ago I ranted against the Supreme Court's subversion of the Rules Enabling Act and its opposition to the benign aims of the twentieth-century progressive law reformers expressed summarily in Rule 1 of our Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I observed then that the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court appeared to have joined the Chamber of Commerce, aligning themselves also with Vice President Dan Quayle's 1989 Council on Competitiveness that denounced effective civil procedure as an enemy of economic development. I was then commenting adversely on what the Court had done to transform Rule 8. I …

Edward Cooper As Curator Of The Civil Rules, Goeffrey C. Hazard Jr.

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Ed Cooper has had a salient role in maintaining the Rules Committee process as a highly competent and stable element of lawmaking in this country. He is a consummate master of civil procedure and acutely understands the constitutional and political milieu in which the Rules process functions. Along with other similarly competent and observant Reporters, including the senior serving Reporter, Dan Coquillette, he has helped keep the Rules process and product as evenhanded as can be expected in our complicated legal system.

Shoes That Did Not Drop, Richard Marcus

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

I take "Shoes That Did Not Drop"' as my topic because I appreciate, by now, that what the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules does not do is, in some ways, as important as what it does. Similarly, the decision not to do something is equally important as, and may be more difficult than, the decision to do something. It may sometimes seem that amending the Rules is too easy. Greg Joseph once said that they are amended as often as the telephone book. Some even think that it was a mistake to create a Rules Committee.3 These reactions are overstated, …

The Twelve-Person Federal Civil Jury In Exile, Thomas D. Rowe Jr.

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In the mid-1990s, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, with Fifth Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham as Chair and our honoree, Professor Ed Cooper, in the early years of his long service as Reporter, unanimously (coincidentally, by a 12-0 vote) proposed an amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 that would have required the seating of twelve-member juries in federal civil trials. The requirement of a unanimous verdict, unless waived by the parties, and the abolition of alternate jurors would have been unaffected; attrition could reduce a jury's size below twelve members, with a floor of six unless the parties …

They Were Meant For Each Other: Professor Edward Cooper And The Rules Enabling Act, Mark R. Kravitz, David F. Levi, Lee H. Rosenthal, Anthony J. Scirica

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This introduction to the essays in this Symposium illuminates Professor Ed Cooper's years as Reporter to the Civil Rules Committee by first briefly describing those who preceded him in the position and his own background. We then describe some of Ed Cooper's many contributions to the Civil Rules Committee, the Federal Rules, rulemaking, and civil procedure by examining the present state of the Rules Committees' work under the Rules Enabling Act. We conclude that after almost eighty years of experience under that Act, it is working well in large part because of the sound leadership provided by Ed Cooper over …

Federal Discovery Stays, Gideon Mark

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In federal civil litigation, unless a discretionary stay is granted, discovery often proceeds while motions to dismiss are pending. Plaintiffs with non-meritorious cases can compel defendants to spend massively on electronic discovery before courts ever rule on such motions. Defendants who are unable or unwilling to incur the huge up-front expense of electronic discovery may be forced to settle non-meritorious claims. To address multiple electronic discovery issues, Congress amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006 and the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2008. However, the amendments failed to significantly reduce costs and failed to address the critical issue …

Just Say "No Fishing": The Lure Of Metaphor, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The phrase "fishing expedition" is widely used in popular culture and in the law. In the legal setting, reliance on the metaphor can act as a substitute for rigorous analysis, disguising the factors that influence the result in a case. At best, it is uninformative. Worse, the fishing metaphor may itself shape the court's attitude toward the issue or claim in a lawsuit.

This Article begins by tracing the development of the "fishing expedition" metaphor in civil cases, demonstrating how its changing uses reflect and contribute to the legal controversies of each era. The policies that originally supported limited use …

Deregulating Voluntary Dismissals, Michael E. Solimine, Amy E. Lippert

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and its state law counterparts permit, under certain circumstances, a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss her lawsuit without prejudice. Within certain windows of opportunity, plaintiffs can take this unilateral action without the permission of the defendant or of the court, and without any conditions attached. When those windows are closed, plaintiffs can still seek dismissal with the approval of the defendant or of the court. This regime is problematic: giving plaintiffs this unilateral power is an anachronism in an age of managerial judging, and can be considerably inconvenient for defendants. Likewise, the case law has …

Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl Tobias

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJRA's gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Summary Judgment Before The Completion Of Discovery: A Proposed Revision Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F), John F. Lapham

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note discusses the purpose of summary judgment in a regime of notice pleading. Part II examines how the federal courts have interpreted and applied rule 56(f). Part III suggests that rule 56(f) be modified to require a more significant factual showing before a court may grant a continuance for further discovery. In addition, Part III examines the policy considerations that support a more stringent rule. Finally, Part IV provides a hypothetical example illustrating the benefits of this proposal.

Preclusion And Procedural Due Process In Rule 23(B)(2) Class Actions, Mark C. Weber

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article examines whether Rule 23(b)(2) violates the procedural due process rights of absent class members by binding them to the judgment in a class case without notice of the suit. It concludes that the Rule almost certainly violates due process and proposes a reform that would permit nonbinding class actions similar to the old "spurious" class suits.

A Proposal To View Patent Claim Nonobviousness From The Policy Perspective Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 52(A), Bradley G. Lane

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note analyzes the scope of appellate review that should be accorded to a trial judge's determination of nonobviousness. Part I details the condition of nonobviousness and how it has evolved into the principal obstacle to patentability. Part II analyzes the Supreme Court and appellate precedents on the scope of review on this issue. Part III evaluates the policy underpinnings of Rule 52(a) and applies a two-pronged analysis to the nonobviousness requirement to determine whether the clearly erroneous standard of review is appropriate. This Note concludes that the treatment of the nonobviousness determination as a question of law cannot be …

Proposals To Amend Rule 68- Time To Abandon Ship, Stephen B. Burbank

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

It is no surprise that, having included "facilitating the settlement of the case" as one of the objectives of pretrial conferences in the 1983 amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Advisory Committee has turned its attention to Rule 68. The Rule was intended to provide an incentive to settle by requiring that a prevailing claimant who has declined a more favorable offer of judgment pay post-offer "costs." But, in the Advisory Committee's view, Rule 68 has proved ineffective. The concern, apparently, is not that too few civil cases filed in federal court are settled-less …

A Proposed Amendment To Rule 26(B)(4)(B): The Expert Twice Retained, Andrew J. Miller

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article will focus on whether the hiring of the free agent as a non-trial expert, in order to conceal information from other parties to the litigation, is in keeping with the underlying goals and values of present discovery practice. Part I of this note discusses the discoverability of experts in general, then examines the various rationales underlying the so-called unfairness doctrine supporting the trial/non-trial expert distinction. Part II presents the case for divergent treatment of the free agent and the regularly retained expert. Subpart A of that section will explain the lack of judicial scrutiny in this area, while …

Stockholder's Derivative Actions By Holders Of Convertible Debentures, Robert A. Malstrom

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article focuses on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. That rule provides a particularly convenient vehicle for discussing the protective limitations which prevent abuse of the derivative action. Analogous protective limitations exist in the statutory or case law of most jurisdictions, therefore the discussion here applies equally to actions brought in the courts of many states. Moreover, the economic and public policy arguments presented are applicable to actions in both federal and state courts.

Shareholder Derivative Actions: A Modest Proposal To Revise Federal Rule 23.1, Robert A. Kessler

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The purpose of this article is to suggest the addition of two words, "if necessary"-or better yet, the phrase "if necessary under the law of the forum state"-to clause (1) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. This Rule sets forth the requirements for a shareholder's derivative action in the federal courts.