Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Initial Disclosures: The Past, Present, And Future Of Discovery, Brittany K.T. Kauffman
Initial Disclosures: The Past, Present, And Future Of Discovery, Brittany K.T. Kauffman
Akron Law Review
This Article looks back at the origins of initial disclosures and the history of the course of several rule amendments. There was an attempt in the early 1990s to strengthen the federal disclosure rules, but the amendments were implemented inconsistently around the country, and the amendments were subsequently rolled back in 2000. Despite these early challenges, there has been a growing movement in support of initial disclosures as a way to address the growing cost and delay of civil litigation—and, in particular, the cost and delay of discovery. Pilot projects and efforts at the state and federal levels suggest a …
Practical Ways To Achieve Proportionality During Discovery And Reduce Costs In The Pretrial Phase Of Federal Civil Cases, Judge Paul W. Grimm
Practical Ways To Achieve Proportionality During Discovery And Reduce Costs In The Pretrial Phase Of Federal Civil Cases, Judge Paul W. Grimm
Akron Law Review
The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ambitiously sought to reduce pretrial delay, expense, and burden in civil cases. But the rules are not self-executing, and without active hands on judicial supervision and intervention where necessary to insure that the Rules are being applied as intended, there is a risk that the objectives of the amended rules will not be realized. This article discusses a number of common sense, practical, yet effective ways in which judges can fulfill their obligation to effectively manage their cases to achieve the goal of Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil …
Asymmetry And Adequacy In Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications Of Haeger V. Goodyear, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Asymmetry And Adequacy In Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications Of Haeger V. Goodyear, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Akron Law Review
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a $2.7 million fee-shifting award imposed on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in response to rather egregious concealment of key testing documents concerning a failing tire blamed for a serious accident. Although the Court’s opinion does not foreclose imposition of substantial sanctions on remand, Haeger v. Goodyear stands as a rather stark illustration of the potential for discovery cheating to have comparatively little consequence—at least for the litigant if not counsel—if the cheating is not discovered until after conclusion of the matter. Although the perceived problem of excessive or overbroad discovery—“expansive discovery …