Evidence Commons^™

Producing Procedural Inequality Through The Empirical Turn, Danya Shocair Reda

University of Colorado Law Review

Procedural rulemaking and scholarship have taken an empirical turn in the past three decades. This empirical turn reflects a surprising consensus in what is otherwise a highly divided field and an inherently adversarial system. Because procedural rules distribute legal power in society, they invariably raise questions about who should have access to courts, information, and the means to defend one's legal rights. While debate rages about these normative commitments, procedure has developed a surprising epistemic agreement on empiricism, with its promise of rising above these competing interests with data. In procedure, the turn toward empiricism has become a strategy for …

For Whom The Sol Tolls: Examining The Role Of The Discovery Rule And Statutes Of Limitations In Ncaa Concussion Litigation, Joseph Sabin Esq., Andrew L. Goldsmith Ph.D.

UNH Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

[Marked Confidential]: Negative Externalities Of Discovery Secrecy, Gustavo Ribeiro

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Current unprecedented levels of secrecy in civil discovery create significant negative externalities by preventing our adversary system from measuring up to the broad public goals that justify it. First, excessive discovery secrecy undermines the courts and the public’s ability to correct distortions of the truth-seeking function of the adversary system caused by excessive partisanship and confirmation bias. Second, it weakens the adversary system’s promotion of liberal democratic values, such as transparency and self-government. Third, it threatens the adversary system’s role in upholding human dignity, understood either as respect or status. To correct the negative externalities caused by excessive discovery secrecy, …

Servotronics, Inc. V. Rolls-Royce Plc And The Boeing Company: Brief Of Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Yanbai Andrea Wang, Michael H. Mcginley

All Faculty Scholarship

Rather than expressing a view on the issues raised and ably briefed by the parties, amicus submits this brief to inform the Court of the scholarly research she has conducted regarding Section 1782 proceedings since this Court’s seminal decision in Intel. As Section 1782 applications have proliferated, the lower courts have struggled to apply the Intel factors as this Court had envisioned. Especially in the context of Section 1782 applications submitted by parties to an international proceeding (as opposed to those made by the international tribunal itself), lower courts have frequently found themselves unable to analyze and apply the …

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 …

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

Opting Out Of Discovery, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

This Article proposes a system in which both parties are provided an opportunity to opt out of discovery. A party who opts out is immunized from dispositive motions, including a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for summary judgment. If neither party opts out of discovery, the parties waive jury-trial rights, thus giving judges the ability to use stronger case-management powers to focus the issues and narrow discovery. If one party opts out of discovery but an opponent does not, the cost of discovery shifts to the opponent. This Article justifies this proposal in …

Capping E-Discovery Costs: A Hybrid Solution To E-Discovery Abuse, Karel Mazanec

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Expert Mining And Required Disclosure, Jonah B. Gelbach

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Mediation Confidentiality: For California Litigants, Why Should Mediation Confidentiality Be A Function Of The Court In Which The Litigation Is Pending?, Rebecca Callahan

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on mediation confidentiality. Confidentiality protections are available to California litigants depending on whether the litigants are in state or federal court. It depicts that California courts provide protection only when disputants utilize mediation for resolving their differences and also focuses on the evidence exclusion provision in which the privilege held by participant acts as bar to compel discovery without everyone's consent.

The Discovery And Use Of Computerized Information: An Examination Of Current Approaches, Richard M. Long

Pepperdine Law Review

In recent years, the legal profession has run head on into the increasing use of computers and computerized information. Discovery and evidentiary rules developed to deal with written documentation may not be flexible enough to adequately cover this relatively new method of storing information. This comment examines various methods by which courts have attempted to deal with discovery and evidentiary problems involving computerized information, and suggests certain areas that should be explored in supporting or attacking the credibility of such information.

The Sanction Provision Of The New California Civil Discovery Act, Section 2023: Will It Make A Difference Or Is It Just Another "Paper Tiger"? , Timothy Michael Donovan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

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.

Jurisdictional Discovery In Transnational Litigation: Extraterritorial Effects Of United States Federal Practice, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

This article describes the device in detail, distinguishing it both practically and theoretically from methods used in other common law systems to establish jurisdiction, and discusses how recent US Supreme Court precedent provides international actors with the means of limiting or avoiding this potentially burdensome procedure.

The Amended Attorney-Client Privilege In Oklahoma: A Misstep In The Right Direction, Robert A. Brown

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Simplifying Discovery And Production- Using Easy Frameworks To Evaluate The 2009 Term Of Cases.Pdf, Eric Carpenter

Eric R. Carpenter

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

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 Unsolved Problem In Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule Of Aerospatiale, William L. Wilks, Nancy E. Goldberg

Penn State International Law Review

In the Aerospatiale decision, the United States Supreme Court attempts to define the powers of American courts to compel discovery from foreign litigants in those courts, in light of the Hague Evidence Convention. This article initially examines the various interpretations of the Convention used to solve the "apples/oranges" problem, encountered by litigants from different nations and incompatible jurisprudential systems, when they seek to obtain evidence located outside the U.S. or in the control of a foreign litigant. The Court's response to this problem is later addressed by an analysis of its decision, which seems to confuse the situation further, for …

Discovery In Kentucky: An Overview, Richard H. Underwood

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Clear Standards For Discovery Protective Orders: A Missed Opportunity In Rhinehart V. Seattle Times Co., Carole J. Breitenbach

Seattle University Law Review

The Washington State Supreme Court has previously balanced the interests of privacy and effective judicial administration against those of free speech and public access in the context of judicial proceedings, and the court missed a significant opportunity to expand and apply this balancing test in Rhinehart. The United States Supreme Court similarly declined to create a balancing test to ensure the full protection of First Amendment interests during pretrial discovery. A need remains for a general standard to ensure that First Amendment interests in disseminating discovery information are identified and protected when a protective order is requested.

Discovery Of Retained Nontestifying Experts' Identities Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note proposes an approach to the problem of identification of rule 26(b)(4)(B) experts that differs from both of the approaches taken in the reported opinions. 9 Part I analyzes the language of rule 26(b) and rejects the majority approach. As a matter of statutory construction, rule 26(b )( 4)(B) governs the disclosure of the identity of nontestifying experts retained by a party in preparation for trial. Part II examines the underlying purposes of rules 26(b)(l) and 26(b)(4)(B) - to ensure adequate pretrial disclosure and to prevent unfairness in adversarial competition - and suggests that both interests may be accommodated. …

Administrative Law - Internal Revenue Service (Irs) Summons Enforcement - When An Irs Investigation Has Been Coordinated By A Justice Department Strike Force, The District Court Must Determine That Each Summons Issued Was Not Used For An Improper Criminal Investigation Purpose, Angela Baker

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The New Michigan Pre-Trial Procedural Rules-Models For Other States?, Robert Meisenholder

Michigan Law Review

The new Michigan procedural laws are embodied in a revised set of statutes and court rules which became effective January 1, 1963, after a long period of study by a Joint Committee on Michigan Procedural Revision. They abolish an anachronistic distinction between procedures in law and equity, abrogate a scattered, disorganized set of rules and statutes, and create a unified, coherent procedural system.

Federal Civil Procedure-Discovery-Availability Of Attorney-Client Privilege To Corporations, Stephen M. Wittenberg

Michigan Law Review

During the pre-trial stage of a civil antitrust suit, plaintiff sought inspection of certain documents in the files of the corporate defendants' outside counsel. The defendant contended that these documents were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. Upon motion for inspection, held, granted. The attorney-client privilege is not available to any of the corporate parties in this action. Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Ass'n, 207 F. Supp. 771, aff'd on rehearing, 209 F. Supp. 321 (N.D. Ill. 1962).

Procedural Problems Of Class Suits, Joseph J. Simeone

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this article is to discuss numerous aspects of the class device, to discuss the many procedural problems confronting court and counsel, to determine the effectiveness of one type of class suit-the spurious-and in the conclusion, to propose legislation for a new rule independent of the rules regarding class actions, a remedy which would more effectively permit the dispatch of numerous claims arising from similar fact patterns.

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 …

Discovery Before Trial In Kentucky, William Threlkeld

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Discovery Before Trial, George Ragland Jr.

Michigan Legal Studies Series

The purpose of this volume is to present in a convenient and usable form a comparative study of the expedients which are being employed in various American and English jurisdictions for the purpose of facilitating pre-trial practice, to describe the practical operation of the different devices, and to show their effect upon the general administration of justice. An analysis of the statutory and case law has been combined with data which shows the practical operation of the procedure in the everyday work of the lawyer and judge. Field studies were made by the author in different cities of the following …