Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley Oct 2019

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to ...


Neither Limited Nor Simplified: A Proposal For Reform Of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 222(B), Michael S. Smith Dec 2018

Neither Limited Nor Simplified: A Proposal For Reform Of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 222(B), Michael S. Smith

Michigan Law Review

A limited and simplified discovery system should broaden access to courts, resolve disputes quickly, and expedite relief to injured parties. It should not incentivize procedural gamesmanship or increase the system’s complexity. Regrettably, Illinois’s “limited and simplified” discovery system does both. The initiation procedure for the simplified system, Rule 222(b), creates procedural traps and perverse incentives for both plaintiffs and defendants, and conflicting appellate interpretations of the Rule intensify the problem. This Note examines the flaws underlying the current simplified discovery scheme and argues for reform. It examines simplified discovery schemes in other states to recommend a new ...


Disentangling Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2): The "New Evidence" Exception To The Ban On Successive Motions For Relief From Judgment Does Not Contain A Discoverability Requirement, Claire V. Madill Jun 2015

Disentangling Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2): The "New Evidence" Exception To The Ban On Successive Motions For Relief From Judgment Does Not Contain A Discoverability Requirement, Claire V. Madill

Michigan Law Review

Michigan courts are engaging in a costly interpretative mistake. Confused by the relationship between two distinct legal doctrines, Michigan courts are conflating laws in a manner that precludes convicted defendants from raising their constitutional claims in postconviction proceedings. In Michigan, a convicted defendant who wishes to collaterally attack her conviction must file a 6.500 motion. The Michigan Court Rules generally prohibit “second or subsequent” motions. Nonetheless, section 6.502(G)(2) permits a petitioner to avoid this successive motion ban if her claim relies on “new evidence that was not discovered” before her original postconviction motion. Misguided by the ...


New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson Jan 2010

New Pleading, New Discovery, Scott Dodson

Michigan Law Review

Pleading in federal court has a new narrative. The old narrative was one of notice, with the goal of broad access to the civil justice system. New Pleading, after the landmark Supreme Court cases of Twombly and Iqbal, is focused on factual sufficiency, with the purpose of screening out meritless cases that otherwise might impose discovery costs on defendants. The problem with New Pleading is that factual insufficiency often is a poor proxy for meritlessness. Some plaintifs lack sufficient factual knowledge of the elements of their claims not because the claims lack merit but because the information they need is ...


Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim Dec 1995

Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that similarly situated litigants always should be given access to protected discovered materials, while nonlitigants should gain access to protected materials only in exceptional circumstances. This approach effectively balances the privacy and property interests of the original parties and the intervening parties with the interests of adjudicative efficiency. Part I establishes that there is no general public right of access to civil discovery and that courts should disregard such purported rights when considering whether to modify a protective order. Part II identifies three interests that courts should weigh when considering whether to modify a protective order: the ...


The Perils Of Privilege: Waiver And The Litigator, Richard L. Marcus Aug 1986

The Perils Of Privilege: Waiver And The Litigator, Richard L. Marcus

Michigan Law Review

Waiver can be made less tricky, although it will never yield algebraic accuracy. Focusing on civil litigation, this article develops a framework for waiver decisions. It begins by stressing a factor that others have neglected - the costs generated by broad traditional waiver rules. These costs result largely from changes in lawyer behavior to reduce waiver risks. Thus, enormous energy can be expended to guarantee that privileged materials are not inadvertently revealed in discovery, and lawyers may adopt elaborate witness preparation strategies in order to prevent witnesses from seeing privileged materials. Judges also feel the burden; where waiver is at stake ...


The Self-Critical Analysis Privilege And Discovery Of Affirmative Action Plans In Title Vii Suits, Michigan Law Review Nov 1984

The Self-Critical Analysis Privilege And Discovery Of Affirmative Action Plans In Title Vii Suits, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that plaintiffs should have access to affirmative action plans in discovery. Part I describes the "self-critical analysis" or "self-evaluative" privilege that employers have advanced to block discovery of such plans. Part II examines the conflicting interests of society, employers and employees in allowing or denying discovery. Part III evaluates the application of a self-critical analysis privilege in light of these conflicting interests and concludes that the privilege should not be applied to affirmative action plans.


Disclosure Of Grand Jury Materials Under Clayton Act Section 4f(B), Michigan Law Review May 1981

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 ...