Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
How Evidence Of Subsequent Remedial Measures Matters, Bernard Chao, Kylie Santos
How Evidence Of Subsequent Remedial Measures Matters, Bernard Chao, Kylie Santos
Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship
Federal Rule of Evidence 407 prohibits plaintiffs from introducing evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show that the defendant is to blame. Among its purported justifications, the rule prevents hindsight bias from unduly influencing jury decisions. Nonetheless, plaintiffs often take advantage of the rule’s numerous exceptions to introduce evidence of remedial measures for other purposes (e.g. to prove feasibility). Fearing that the exceptions could swallow the rule, some courts will even exclude evidence that fits into one of these exceptions because it is ostensibly too prejudicial. Alternatively, other courts instruct juries that they should only use the evidence for the …
E-Discovery's Threat To Civil Litigation: Reevaluating Rule 26 For The Digital Age, Robert M. Hardaway, Dustin D. Berger, Andrea Defield
E-Discovery's Threat To Civil Litigation: Reevaluating Rule 26 For The Digital Age, Robert M. Hardaway, Dustin D. Berger, Andrea Defield
Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even though they were amended in 2006 specifically to address the costs and scale of ediscovery, not only fail to contain the cost or scope of discovery, but, in fact, encourage expensive litigation ancillary to the merits of civil litigants' cases. This Article proposes that the solution to this dilemma is to eliminate the presumption that the producing party should pay for the cost of discovery. This rule should be abandoned in favor of a rule that would equally distribute the costs of discovery between the requesting and producing parties.