Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (1)
- Civil Rules (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Diversity cases (1)
- ESI (1)
-
- Electronically Stored Information (1)
- Eleventh Circuit (1)
- Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Loophole (1)
- Multidistrict Litigation (1)
- Multidistrict litigation (1)
- Preliminary Injunction standards (1)
- Proportionality Standard (1)
- Ragan and Walker (1)
- Rule 37(e) (1)
- Sanctions for Protective Order Violations (1)
- Snap removals (1)
- Spoliation (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
No Motion Left Behind: Adjudicating Motions To Remand In Cases Snap Removed To Mdls, Millie Price
No Motion Left Behind: Adjudicating Motions To Remand In Cases Snap Removed To Mdls, Millie Price
Georgia Law Review
Under the current wording of the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, defendants in some jurisdictions may remove a state action to federal court before an in-state defendant is served. These defendants are taking advantage of the forum defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). This phenomenon has been coined “snap removals.” Three federal courts of appeals allow such removals, whereas many federal district courts say it is improper. The “home” district court might not be the end point for the case, though. Corporate defendants often ask for the case to be transferred to a pending Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) …
An Empirical Evaluation Of Proposed Civil Rules For Multidistrict Litigation, Margaret S. Williams, Jason A. Cantone
An Empirical Evaluation Of Proposed Civil Rules For Multidistrict Litigation, Margaret S. Williams, Jason A. Cantone
Georgia Law Review
The Civil Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference of the
United States recently began considering the need for specific
rules regarding multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings. The
possibility of creating rules specifically for MDL originates with
recently proposed legislation prompted by groups typically tied
to the defense bar. One area the Civil Rules Committee is
considering concerns the use of fact sheets in MDL proceedings.
These party-negotiated questionnaires—directed at both
parties to the case—inform judges and attorneys about the
scope of the proceeding. Understanding whether these case
management tools are currently being used and how they work
with other tools, such …
How To Fill A Procedural Loophole: Re-Evaluating The Ragan And Walker Analysis In Light Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4(M), Holly M. Boggs
How To Fill A Procedural Loophole: Re-Evaluating The Ragan And Walker Analysis In Light Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 4(M), Holly M. Boggs
Georgia Law Review
Legislatures implement statutes of limitations to
protect defendants from being brought into lawsuits for
incidents long past. However, a proceduralloophole in
the Georgiafederal court system could permit plaintiffs
to disregardstatutes of limitations and wait as long as
they please to notify a defendant of a pending claim.
The loophole exists because federal courts in Georgia
must defer to state law governing the tolling of statutes
of limitations, and that state law is procedurally
incompatible with the federal court's system. In order
to fill the procedural loophole, this Note argues that the
Eleventh Circuit should apply the federal rule-rather
than Georgia's …
Spoliating The Adverse Inference Instruction: The Impact Of The 2015 Amendment To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(E), Alexandra M. Reynolds
Spoliating The Adverse Inference Instruction: The Impact Of The 2015 Amendment To Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(E), Alexandra M. Reynolds
Georgia Law Review
The discovery process relies heavily on the information
that we store on our electronic devices. The ease with
which we tap into the many capabilities of technology,
however, exposes litigants to a significant risk-spoliation
of evidence. Evidence may be spoliated accidentally or
intentionally, but when spoliation does occur, the party
seeking that evidence often seeks a remedy from the court.
The adverse inference instruction has functioned as one of
those remedies. Courts split on what level of culpability is
required to issue an adverse inference instruction. The
Rule 37(e) amendments attempt to address rising costs of
electronic discovery and resolve …
The Preliminary Injunction Standard In Diversity: A Typical Unguided Erie Choice, David E. Shipley
The Preliminary Injunction Standard In Diversity: A Typical Unguided Erie Choice, David E. Shipley
Georgia Law Review
The standard for granting preliminary injunctions in some states is not the same as the preliminary injunction standard that is followed in the federal district courts in the federal circuit where the state is located. For example, the interlocutory injunction standard in Georgia's superior courts is not as demanding as the preliminary injunction standard in Georgia's federal courts. Although state and federal courts in Georgia consider four similar factors in deciding whether to grant or deny provisional injunctive relief, a balancing or sliding scale approach can be used in Georgia's courts; the moving party need not prove all four of …
The Law And Economics Of Proportionality In Discovery, Jonah B. Gelbach, Bruce H. Kobayashi
The Law And Economics Of Proportionality In Discovery, Jonah B. Gelbach, Bruce H. Kobayashi
Georgia Law Review
This Article analyzes the proportionality standard in discovery. Many believe the renewed emphasis on this standard contained in the 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has the potential to infuse litigation practice with considerably more attention to questions related to the costs and benefits of discovery. We discuss the history and rationale of proportionality's inclusion in Rule 26, adopting an analytical framework that focuses on how costs and benefits can diverge in litigation generally, and discovery in particular. Finally, we use this framework to understand the mechanics and challenges involved in deploying the six factors included in …
Protect Yourself: Why The Eleventh Circuit's Approach To Sanctions For Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants, Adam J. Fitzsimmons
Protect Yourself: Why The Eleventh Circuit's Approach To Sanctions For Protective Order Violations Fails Litigants, Adam J. Fitzsimmons
Georgia Law Review
Litigants commonly struggle to balance the need to comply with discovery requests and the desire to protect valuable trade secrets. Protective orders to help strike that balance. Questions arise, however, when one of the parties violates that protective order and discloses the opponent's confidential information. Chiefly, what remedies are available for a party whose invaluable intellectual property has been disclosed? At least one circuit has held the most common sanction, payment of attorney's fees, is unavailable for a violation of a protective order. Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) governs sanctions for violations of discovery orders, but the text …