Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Discovery Stays, Gideon Mark
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 …
Summary Judgment Before The Completion Of Discovery: A Proposed Revision Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F), John F. Lapham
Summary Judgment Before The Completion Of Discovery: A Proposed Revision Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F), John F. Lapham
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Part I of this Note discusses the purpose of summary judgment in a regime of notice pleading. Part II examines how the federal courts have interpreted and applied rule 56(f). Part III suggests that rule 56(f) be modified to require a more significant factual showing before a court may grant a continuance for further discovery. In addition, Part III examines the policy considerations that support a more stringent rule. Finally, Part IV provides a hypothetical example illustrating the benefits of this proposal.
A Proposed Amendment To Rule 26(B)(4)(B): The Expert Twice Retained, Andrew J. Miller
A Proposed Amendment To Rule 26(B)(4)(B): The Expert Twice Retained, Andrew J. Miller
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This article will focus on whether the hiring of the free agent as a non-trial expert, in order to conceal information from other parties to the litigation, is in keeping with the underlying goals and values of present discovery practice. Part I of this note discusses the discoverability of experts in general, then examines the various rationales underlying the so-called unfairness doctrine supporting the trial/non-trial expert distinction. Part II presents the case for divergent treatment of the free agent and the regularly retained expert. Subpart A of that section will explain the lack of judicial scrutiny in this area, while …