Law Commons^™

Bringing "Civil"Ity Into Immigration Law: Using The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure To Fix Immigration Adjudication, Richard Frankel -- Professor Of Law

Vanderbilt Law Review

Government lawyers frequently argue, and courts have frequently held, that noncitizens in removal proceedings do not have the same rights as defendants in criminal proceedings. A common argument made to support this position is that removal proceedings are civil matters. Accordingly, a noncitizen facing deportation has fewer due process protections than a criminal defendant, and deportation proceedings similarly provide fewer protections than criminal proceedings.

In many ways, however, the rules governing immigration proceedings differ markedly from those governing civil actions in court. Immigration proceedings suffer from arcane and hypertechnical procedures that impede immigrants from having their claims reviewed on the …

Introduction: Reflections On The Future Of Discovery In Civil Cases, Paul W. Grimm

Vanderbilt Law Review

First, we have a long way to go to educate judges about the benefit of active judicial management of the discovery process and the proportionality requirement. Second, just telling judges to "go forth and actively manage" without showing them concrete ways to do it in realistic case settings is not going to be effective. I am happy to report that thanks to the hard work of Judge Jeremy Fogel, director of the Federal Judicial Center, the educational programs for new and experienced judges alike now include special emphasis on management of the discovery process and the proportionality requirement. And the …

A Plan For Reforming Federal Pleading, Discovery, And Pretrial Merits Review, David Rosenberg, Anne Brown, Jaehyun Oh, Benjamin Taylor

Vanderbilt Law Review

We propose a fundamental restructuring of the federal civil pretrial process to address its great expense and unreliability in resolving cases on their merits-problems largely attributable to discovery. The proposed reforms establish an affirmative-disclosure mandate that sharply reduces the role of discovery by transferring most of the parties' burden of fully revealing discoverable matter, favorable and unfavorable, to their pleadings. To effectuate the new function for pleadings, the reformed process replaces Rules 12(b)(6), (c), and (f) with pretrial merits review conducted exclusively pursuant to the procedures and standards for summary judgment under Rule 56. Responding parties will be required to …

Aligning Incentives And Cost Allocation In Discovery, Jonathan R. Nash, Joanna Shepherd

Vanderbilt Law Review

In this Article, we explain that either a rule requiring both parties to share the costs of discovery ("cost-sharing rule") or a rule creating a risk for both parties that they will bear the entire costs of discovery ("cost-shifting rule") would minimize many of the negative incentives that exist under either a strict producer-pays or requester pays rule. Whereas the producer-pays rule creates incentives for excessive discovery because requesters can externalize the costs of requests and use discovery to impose costs on producing parties to force settlement, requesters under a cost-sharing or cost-shifting rule cannot externalize the costs of discovery …

Application Of The New "Proportionality" Discovery Rule In Class Actions: Much Ado About Nothing, Robert H. Klonoff

Vanderbilt Law Review

The "proportionality" amendment to the federal discovery rules, which went into effect on December 1, 2015, was greeted with panic by the plaintiffs' bar (and the academy) and euphoria by the defense bar. Both sides predicted that the impact would be profound and immediate. Some predicted that the impact would be especially great in class actions. To examine whether the predictions have been correct, I have reviewed every published judicial opinion (approximately 135) between December 1, 2015 and April 30, 2018 that applied the new proportionality rule in the class action context. The analysis is necessarily anecdotal rather than empirical. …

Bespoke Discovery, Jessica Erickson

Vanderbilt Law Review

The U.S. legal system gives contracting parties significant freedom to customize the procedures that will govern their future disputes.' With forum selection clauses, parties can decide where they will litigate future disputes.2 With fee-shifting provisions, they can choose who will pay for these suits. 3 And with arbitration clauses, they can make upfront decisions to opt out of the traditional legal system altogether.4 Parties can also waive their right to appeal,5 their right to a jury trial,6 and their right to file a class action.7 Bespoke procedure, in other words, is commonplace in the United States. Far less common, however, …

Opting Out Of Discovery, Jay Tidmarsh

Vanderbilt Law Review

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 …

Seeking Proportional Discovery: The Beginning Of The End Of Procedural Uniformity In Civil Rules, Linda S. Simard

Vanderbilt Law Review

After more than two decades of vigorous debate, the original Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective on September 16, 1938, and ushered in broad provisions for discovery. The need for discovery, however, was not a central theme of the debates that preceded the original codification. Rather, the proponents of the new rules asserted that the Conformity Act of 1872 created uncertainty regarding the procedure that would apply in federal court. This uncertainty caused unnecessary expense and delay, particularly for interstate corporations that felt compelled to retain specialized counsel in every state. Proponents asserted that adoption of trans-substantive rules of …

One-Way Fee Shifting After Summary Judgment, Cameron T. Norris

Vanderbilt Law Review

New, defendant-friendly amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect in December 2015. Included in the amendments were several provisions designed to curb the cost of discovery. Although modest, the discovery-related provisions created more controversy than perhaps anything the rule makers have done in recent memory. Yet the new amendments were only part of what corporate defendants asked the rule makers to do. Left undone was a much more ambitious proposal: to outright flip who pays for discovery, from the party who produces the discovery to the party who requests it. To the surprise of many commentators, the …

A Comparative Discussion Of Who Pays For Document Discovery In Australia, Canada, Guernsey (Channel Islands), And Singapore And Its Effect On Access To Justice, Gordon Mckee, Anne Glover, Francis Rouleau

Vanderbilt Law Review

symposium organized by the Vanderbilt Law Review to discuss the future of discovery in the United States.' More specifically, the topic for discussion was an ongoing debate in the United States about proposals by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice to adopt a "requestor-pays" discovery rule. In a requestor-pays system, each party pays for the discovery it seeks, which includes the costs of discovery belonging to the other parties to the litigation. It is based on the theory that a requestor-pays rule will encourage each party to manage its own discovery expenses and tailor …

A Proposal To End Discovery Abuse, Alexandra D. Lahav

Vanderbilt Law Review

When commentators, lawyers, judges, politicians, business people-anyone really-are looking to heap abuse on part of the civil process, they complain about discovery. But in truth, civil discovery is treated cruelly and often misunderstood. This is the case for two reasons. First, we do not know much about what actually happens in civil discovery in different types of cases. As a result, people seem to fill in the gaps of knowledge with their priors, which are, in turn, dependent on a few examples that loom large in their imaginations. Whatever limited reliable evidence about discovery we do have-and it is indeed …

Procedural Design, Alexandra D. Lahav

Vanderbilt Law Review

The procedural law dictates the sequence of steps that bring a lawsuit from filing to completion. The design of civil procedure in the federal courts is generally described as having the following sequential order: complaint, motion to dismiss, discovery, summary judgment, trial, and finally, appeal. While this is a passable description of the vision of the drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, it no longer describes the reality of federal litigation. Jurisdiction can be determined at the end of the lawsuit rather than the beginning. Judges demand determination of factual disputes before discovery commences through a …

How To Assert State Sovereign Immunity Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Calvin Cohen

Vanderbilt Law Review

Twenty years have passed since the Supreme Court announced dramatic changes to the doctrine of state sovereign immunity in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida.' This doctrine prevents "suits by private parties against unconsenting States" in recognition of the state's power to govern itself and its citizens freely, as well as the financial impact lawsuits have on the state's treasury. Since Seminole Tribe, the Supreme Court has-in a series of contentious 5-4 decisions-increasingly allowed this doctrine to immunize states and their officers from suits arising under the federal laws and sometimes even the Constitution. But while the Court has expanded …

The Rise And Fall Of Plausibility Pleading?, Adam N. Steinman

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal unleashed a torrent of scholarly reaction. Commentators charged these decisions with adopting a new pleading regime, "plausibility pleading," that upended the notice-pleading approach that had long prevailed in federal court. Whether a complaint could survive a motion to dismiss-it was argued-now depends on whether the court found the complaint plausible, allowing courts to second-guess a complaint's allegations without any opportunity for discovery or consideration of actual evidence. Lower courts began to cite Twombly and Iqbal at a remarkably high rate, and …

Mass Torts And Due Process, Sergio J. Campos

Vanderbilt Law Review

As the old saying goes, hard cases make bad law. But hard cases also reveal the limits of legal doctrine. In this Article, I turn to a class of hard cases--mass torts--to rethink the law of procedural due process under the Due Process Clause. Mass torts have long perplexed courts and scholars. They include torts caused by asbestos and other toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, oil spills, and other mass-produced products and services. The plaintiffs not only suffer significant injuries, but the sheer number of plaintiffs, each with claims that raise unique fact and legal issues, stretch judicial resources to the limit. …

Should "Twombly" And "Iqbal" Apply To Affirmative Defenses?, Nathan Pysno

Vanderbilt Law Review

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court promulgated a new pleading standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, specifically holding that complaints must state a claim to relief that is "plausible on its face." The Twombly decision retired the well-established and more lenient pleading regime that reigned since the Court's 1957 decision in Conley v. Gibson. Two years after Twombly, the Supreme Court confirmed in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that neither the reach of the new plausibility standard nor the death of Conley was exaggerated. "Labels and conclusions" are now insufficient, as are "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement" and "unadorned …

Are An Empty Head And A Pure Heart Enough? Mens Rea Standards For Judge-Imposed Rule 11 Sanctions And Their Effect On Attorney Action, Sybil L. Dunlop

Vanderbilt Law Review

"In her wildest dreams, Barbie could not have imagined herself in the middle of Rule 11 proceedings."' However, in 2002, Mattel's Barbie Doll found herself in the center of "acrimonious litigation." Attorney James Hicks brought suit on behalf of Harry Christian, claiming that the Cool Blue Barbie infringed on the Christian Claudene Doll's copyright. Hicks, however, had failed to discover that Mattel designed Cool Blue Barbie six years before Christian's Claudine Doll. In light of this egregious error, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Hicks' complaint frivolous under Rule 11. Barbie …

Juror Questions During Trial: A Window Into Juror Thinking, Shari Seidman Diamond, Mary R. Rose, Beth Murphy, Sven Smith

Vanderbilt Law Review

The jury has undergone a dramatic transformation from its earliest incarnation when jurors acted as witnesses, investigators, and tribunal. In the modern American jury trial, the parties determine what jurors learn during the proceedings. Jurors of today, assigned the role of audience members until deliberations begin, typically speak in the courtroom only during jury selection and through their verdict at the end of the trial. In light of their enforced silence throughout the trial, jurors have no opportunity to clarify or check on their interpretation of the evidence and they provide few external indications about their thinking as the trial …

Toward A New Federalism In State Civil Justice: Developing A Uniform Code Of State Civil Procedure Through A Collaborative Rule-Making Process, Glenn S. Koppel

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is a sense of "deja vu" to the vision of a uniform body of state procedural law applicable in every state court throughout the nation. "Swift v. Tysons'" dream of a nationally uniform body of state substantive common law that mirrored an evolving body of uniform federal common law never materialized because state courts refused to defer to federal common law, which was applied only in federal court. Swift itself was overturned in 1938 by the Supreme Court's ruling in "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins" that federal courts must defer to the substantive lawmaking authority of state courts. But almost …

No More Excuses: Refusing To Condone Mere Carelessness Or Negligence Under The "Excusable Neglect" Standard In Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 60(B)(1), Bree W. Weathersbee

Vanderbilt Law Review

Rule 60(b)' is an attempt to codify the equitable, common law practice of reforming judgments under special circumstances. The rule, inter alia, authorizes a court to relieve a party from a default judgment for "excusable neglect." This standard, however, is not defined in the rules, and courts have struggled with its meaning. Some circuits define the term liberally and often grant requests to vacate default judgments. Others adopt a strict interpretation and consistently refuse to vacate default judgments resulting from mere carelessness or negligence. Recently, in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the Supreme Court clarified the …

Rule 11 And Factually Frivolous Claims-- The Goal Of Cost Minimization And The Client's Duty To Investigate, James E. Ward, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note examines the duty Rule 11 creates and its allocation between attorneys and their clients from an economic perspective. Part II examines Rule 11's historical purpose of deterring frivolous claims and traces the roots of the duty the Rule imposes on attorneys to achieve this purpose. Part III discusses how Rule 11 ideally should function in a society with perfect information about the cost of frivolous claims to the judicial system compared to the cost of deterring such claims, and determines that an optimal Rule would minimize the sum of these costs. Given the information constraints of the real …

The Intended Application Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 11: An End To The "Empty Head, Pure Heart"Defense And A Reinforcement Of Ethical Standards, Debbie A. Wilson

Vanderbilt Law Review

The American public has long viewed the legal profession with a puzzling mixture of respect and envy tempered by distaste and mistrust.' Nevertheless, Americans especially are amenable to invoking judicial processes when a wrong is perceived.' This tendency has led to the well-publicized problems of overcrowded dockets and lengthy trial proceedings, both of which contribute to making the American legal system the most expensive in the world. Commentators, the legal community, and other citizens increasingly criticize the litigiousness of the American legal system. The legal profession generally is exempt from governmental regulation because the bar adopts and enforces its own …

Burying (With Kindness) The Felicific Calculus Of Civil Procedure, Linda S. Mullenix

Vanderbilt Law Review

On January 2, 1986, Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit announced to an astonished legal profession, not to mention the unsuspecting attorneys-of-record, that, in the future, the Seventh Circuit would decide whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction by applying the following simple formula:

P x Hp > (1-P) x Hd

With one fell swoop of his algebraic-judicial pen, Judge Posner not only stirred the deepest math anxieties of the practicing bar, but revolutionized preliminary injunction law. Despite Judge Posner's protestations that his simple formula was not "offered as a new legal …

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 …

Recent Cases, Cornelia H. Boozman, R. Preston Bolt, Jr., Kenneth L. Stewart

Vanderbilt Law Review

Administrative Law--Ripeness--Agency Head's Informal Opinion Letters Held Unripe for Review When No Substantial Hardship Placed on Parties

Cornelia H. Boozman

The basic premise of the ripeness doctrine is that judicial machinery should operate only on concrete problems that are present or imminent, not on problems that are abstract, hypothetical,or remote... The Supreme Court articulated a more definitive standard for determining ripeness in "Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner." Espousing what it considered to be the basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine, avoidance of premature adjudication of discretionary administrative policies, the Court established a procedure for evaluating the ripeness issue in challenges to …

Recent Cases, Sara P. Walsh, Don B. Cannada, Frances L. Adams, William T. Luedke, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

Civil Procedure - Appellate Jurisdiction - Orders Denying Disqualification of Counsel on Ethical Grounds Are Not Final Decisions Subject to Immediate Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Sara Porter Walsh

Petitioner,' an applicant for a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) broadcasting license, sought interlocutory review of a Commission order' denying a motion to disqualify the law firm that had represented competitor RKO for thirty years. Petitioner alleged that participation by the firm, which included an attorney who was chairman of the FCC while RKO's application was under consideration, constituted a violation of Canons Five and Nine' of the ABA Code of …

Recent Cases, Author Unidentified

Vanderbilt Law Review

Civil Procedure--Service of Process--California Long-Arm Statutes Abrogate State's Immunity Doctrine

Seeking recovery of money owed him by defendant European corporations;' plaintiff brought suit in a California state court.While attending federal district court in Florida for the sole purpose of giving a deposition in a trademark infringement suit instituted by one of the corporations, defendants' representative was personally served with process in the California action on behalf of himself and the defendant corporations. Defendants moved to quash service of process on the ground that the immunity rule prohibited service of civil process upon a witness in attendance in a court outside …

Recent Cases, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

Civil Procedure--Class Actions--Order Dismissing Class Action that Leaves Plaintiff To Litigate a Small Monetary Claim Is Not a Final Appealable Order Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Plaintiff consumer, claiming to represent one and one-half million purchasers of defendants" products, filed a class action under section 4 of the Clayton Act, seeking treble damages, costs, and attorney's fees from defendants for alleged antitrust violations. Defendants successfully moved for a stay of proceedings pending the district court's determination of whether the case could be maintained as a class action.The court found the class unmanageable and, in accordance with Rule 23(c)(1) of the …

Declaratory Remedies And Constitutional Change, David L. Dickson

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act' has now been law for more than 36 years. The debates over whether a purely declaratory judgment can be the product of a justiciable "controversy" in the constitutional sense have long since passed away, set to rest by the language of the Act itself and by the Supreme Court's decision that the Act was authorized by the judiciary article of the Constitution. The last edition of Professor Borchard's great work, Declaratory Judgments, was published in 1941,and the most recent article analyzing the constitutional significance of the Act was published shortly before Chief Justice Warren took …

The Alien's Access To Local Remedies: The African Commonwealth Countries' Experience, Ivan L. Head

Vanderbilt Law Review

Of the 27 members of the Commonwealth of Nations, 11 are located on the continent of Africa. They range in size from Nigeria, with an area of 356,000 square miles and a population of 60 million, to The Gambia, with an area of 4,000 square miles and a population of 350,000 persons. Prior to 1957 all of the 11 States were colonies of the British crown. In little more than a decade they have all gained political independence-one hundred and six million people residing in autonomous communities which are, in the words of the 1926 Balfour Declaration, "equal in status, …