Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Discovery As Regulation, Diego A. Zambrano
Discovery As Regulation, Diego A. Zambrano
Michigan Law Review
This article develops an approach to discovery that is grounded in regulatory theory and administrative subpoena power. The conventional judicial and scholarly view about discovery is that it promotes fair and accurate outcomes and nudges the parties toward settlement. While commonly held, however, this belief is increasingly outdated and suffers from limitations. Among them, it has generated endless controversy about the problem of discovery costs. Indeed, a growing chorus of scholars and courts has offered an avalanche of reforms, from cost shifting and bespoke discovery contracts to outright elimination. Recently, Judge Thomas Hardiman quipped that if he had absolute power, …
Between The Ceiling And The Floor: Making The Case For Required Disclosure Of High-Low Agreements To Juries, Richard Lorren Jolly
Between The Ceiling And The Floor: Making The Case For Required Disclosure Of High-Low Agreements To Juries, Richard Lorren Jolly
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Parties are increasingly using high-low agreements to limit the risks of litigation. High-low agreements are contracts in which defendants agree to pay plaintiffs a minimum recovery in return for plaintiffs’ agreement not to execute on a jury award above a maximum amount. Currently no jurisdiction requires high-low agreements to be disclosed to the jury. This Note argues that disclosure should be required. It contends that non-disclosed high-low agreements are a type of procedural contract modifying the jury’s core adjudicative function. Drawing on theories of procedural justice, it suggests that by usurping the jury’s role these agreements undermine the legitimacy of …
Disclosure Of Grand Jury Materials Under Clayton Act Section 4f(B), Michigan Law Review
Disclosure Of Grand Jury Materials Under Clayton Act Section 4f(B), Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note analyzes the controversy and concludes that the latter courts are correct: Congress never intended to abrogate or modify rule 6(e)'s "particularized need" standard when it enacted section4F(b). Part I discusses whether Congress intended section 4F(b) to require the Attorney General to disclose grand jury materials to state attorneys general upon request, thereby abrogating rule 6(e)'s explicit prohibition against such disclosure. Part II examines the statutory language and legislative history of section). 4F(b) to determine whether Congress intended section 4F(b) to modify rule 6(e)'s "particularized need" standard. Finally, Part III evaluates the policies affected by liberalized disclosure of grand …
The Civil Investigative Demand: New Fact-Finding Powers For The Antitrust Division, Richard L. Perry, William Simon
The Civil Investigative Demand: New Fact-Finding Powers For The Antitrust Division, Richard L. Perry, William Simon
Michigan Law Review
The complexity, scope and length of modem antitrust litigation bring to prominence the procedures by which evidence - particularly documentary evidence - is discovered and placed before the courts and administrative agencies. Fact-finding mechanisms now available for ferreting out and prosecuting violations make up an imposing array. These include the grand jury subpoena, the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the subpoena and visitorial powers of certain administrative agencies. The "civil investigative demand," a precomplaint compulsory process, is a new weapon proposed to be added to this arsenal. Few dispute the desirability of new …
Evidence-Privilege-Right Of Third Person To Assert Privilege As To Accident Report Made Confidential By Statute, Richard W. Young S.Ed.
Evidence-Privilege-Right Of Third Person To Assert Privilege As To Accident Report Made Confidential By Statute, Richard W. Young S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff brought a negligence action for injuries sustained when the automobile in which she was a passenger collided with that operated by the defendant. Defendant questioned a police officer, who had filed the accident report, concerning statements made to him by the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding. The trial court permitted this testimony over the plaintiff's objection that these statements were privileged under an Iowa statute purporting to make written accident reports confidential and inadmissible in evidence. On appeal after a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant, held, reversed. The statute can …