Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
It’S A Trap! The Ethical Dark Side Of Requests For Admission, Colin Flora
It’S A Trap! The Ethical Dark Side Of Requests For Admission, Colin Flora
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Due largely to an overlap of authority between disciplinary bodies charged with supervising the professional conduct of attorneys and the authority of courts to supervise litigation, the ethical ramifications of routine discovery abuses often pass without comment. That is because disciplinary authorities routinely defer to courts to police litigation behavior despite courts frequently rejecting the role of enforcers of professional rules. A further contributing factor to unethical conduct becoming routine practice in discovery are ill-defined parameters and a dearth of guidance. One tool in particular, requests for admission, has gone overlooked in the literature and caselaw, but poses unique ethical …
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
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.
Twisting The Purposes Of Discovery: Expert Witnesses And The Deposition Dilemma, Steven D. Parman
Twisting The Purposes Of Discovery: Expert Witnesses And The Deposition Dilemma, Steven D. Parman
Vanderbilt Law Review
The system of discovery that the Federal Rules establish theoretically entitles all parties in civil actions, prior to commencement of trial, to disclosure of all relevant nonprivileged information in he possession of any person. Thus, federal discovery rules should not force litigants to choose between failing to depose a party-opponent's expert witness and thereby preparing inadequately for trial, and deposing the expert witness and consequently risking that opposing counsel will use the deposition against him at trial without the benefit of cross-examination. Part H of this Note reviews common law disagreement over the appropriateness of expert witness discovery and the …
Federal Civil Procedure-Federal Rule 12(E): Motion For More Definite Statement- History, Operation And Efficacy, Stefan F. Tucker S.Ed.
Federal Civil Procedure-Federal Rule 12(E): Motion For More Definite Statement- History, Operation And Efficacy, Stefan F. Tucker S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of this comment is to trace the history of the motion for more definite statement as provided for in the Federal Rules, analyze the reasons for granting or denying the motion, and propose an answer to the question of whether Rule 12(e) is necessary, or superfluous, as part of modern federal pleading procedure.