Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Erie; affidavit of merit; choice of law; FRCP 11; malpractice (1)
- Injunction; Canada; interlocutory mandatory injunctions; interlocutory prohibitive injunctions; Supreme Court of Canada; R v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.; strong prima facie case; litigation; trial; American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd.; practical consequences (1)
- Litigation finance; TPLF; litigation funding; TPLF disclosure (1)
- Litigation holds; legal holds; nonparties; discovery; nonparties in discovery; evidence; e-discovery; electronically stored information; ESI; Zubulake; Judge Scheindlin; Sedona Principles; Sedona Conference; subpoena; FRCP Rule 45; spoliation; FRCP; federal rules of civil procedure; duty to preserve evidence (1)
- Third Party Litigation Funding; Maintenance; Malice Maintenance; Champerty; Barratry; Bollea V. Gawker; Gawker; Disclosure; Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure; Rule 26 Duty To Disclose; Rule 11; American Bar Association Rule 1.8; Litigation (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Unintended Consequences: The New Test For Interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions, Jeff Berryman
Unintended Consequences: The New Test For Interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions, Jeff Berryman
Brooklyn Law Review
Interlocutory mandatory injunctions can be an important remedy during the pendency of a trial. With its decision in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp, the Supreme Court of Canada revised its test for an interlocutory mandatory injunction, holding that it should require a higher threshold and be therefore harder to obtain than an interlocutory prohibitive injunction. This higher threshold requires that the applicant demonstrate a strong prima facie case that it will succeed at trial based on law and evidence. This change adds uncertainty to the process, ultimately complicating and adding costs to litigation.
Nonparty Litigation Holds: Clear To Implement. Complex To Lift., Alexis Bianco-Burrill
Nonparty Litigation Holds: Clear To Implement. Complex To Lift., Alexis Bianco-Burrill
Brooklyn Law Review
Legal holds have long been used by parties, and nonparties alike, as a fundamental tool to preserve information that could be needed in litigation. There are a breadth of statutes, case law, and scholarly work clarifying when a party has the duty to preserve documents and therefore issues legal holds under federal law, as well as when nonparties share this same duty. Although the question of when to issue a legal hold has a clear answer, the problem of when a nonparty can lift a litigation hold is much more complex. Often, nonparties who have been requested to preserve documents …
The Rules Of The Malpractice Game: Affidavit Of Merit Statutes, Erie, And The Cautionary Tale Of An Overbroad Application Of Rule 11, Deanna Arpi Youssoufian
The Rules Of The Malpractice Game: Affidavit Of Merit Statutes, Erie, And The Cautionary Tale Of An Overbroad Application Of Rule 11, Deanna Arpi Youssoufian
Brooklyn Law Review
In an effort to combat the rise in potentially frivolous lawsuits against professionals, including physicians, attorneys, and journalists, states have passed malpractice legislation requiring plaintiffs to file an affidavit of merit (AOM) attesting to the validity of their claims. However, these AOM statutes may conflict with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which provides that “a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit” unless a rule or statute states otherwise. This is a classic Erie/choice-of-law problem for federal courts sitting in diversity, which are tasked with applying federal procedural law and state substantive law, and now must …
The Debate Over Disclosure In Third-Party Litigation Finance: Balancing The Need For Transparency With Efficiency, Alec J. Manfre
The Debate Over Disclosure In Third-Party Litigation Finance: Balancing The Need For Transparency With Efficiency, Alec J. Manfre
Brooklyn Law Review
The market for third-party litigation financing (TPLF) in the United States is facing unprecedented growth and popularity. The ever-increasing complexity and cost of legal disputes, especially in the commercial context, has made third-party financing an invaluable resource for both litigants in need of capital and investors seeking to diversify their portfolios with nontraditional assets. However, as the market continues to boom, so does the risk that TPLF will be used unethically. Critics of the industry are calling on regulators at both the state and federal levels to implement comprehensive disclosure requirements for TPLF at the outset of all civil litigation …
Malice Maintenance Is “Runnin’ Wild”: A Demand For Disclosure Of Third-Party Litigation Funding, Anusheh Khoshsima
Malice Maintenance Is “Runnin’ Wild”: A Demand For Disclosure Of Third-Party Litigation Funding, Anusheh Khoshsima
Brooklyn Law Review
Third-party funding (TPLF) is when a nonparty, who does not have a direct stake in the litigation, funds a lawsuit. There are varying motivations that drive TPLF arrangements—including investors offering loans to receive a portion of the settlement or public interest groups sponsoring impact litigation. This note discusses a specific mode of TPLF that is motivated by a personal interest in the lawsuit rather than monetary gain, referred to as “malice maintenance.” At common law, maintenance was prohibited to prevent powerful and wealthy individuals form taking advantage of the court system. The majority of states today, however, permit at least …