Law Commons^™

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 …

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 …

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 …

Guidelines And Best Practices For Implementing The 2015 Discovery Amendments Concerning Proportionality (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

In November 2014, the Duke Law Judicial Studies Center, which became the Bolch Judicial Institute in 2018, held a conference on the discovery proportionality amendments with more than 70 practitioners and 15 federal judges. Drafting teams were subsequently formed, consisting of 32 practitioners, who worked for nine months on an initial draft set of GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES prepared by Judge Lee Rosenthal and Prof. Steven Gensler. The team’s work product, the GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE 2015 DISCOVERY AMENDMENTS TO ACHIEVE PROPORTIONALITY, was published in 99 Judicature, no. 3, Winter 2015, along with several related articles.

Most of …

Judicial Mistakes In Discovery, Diego A. Zambrano

Northwestern University Law Review

A recent wave of scholarship argues that judges often fail to comply with binding rules or precedent and sometimes apply overturned laws. Scholars have hypothesized that the cause of this “judicial noncompliance” may be flawed litigant briefing that introduces mistakes into judicial decisions—an idea this Essay calls the “Litigant Hypothesis.” The Essay presents a preliminary study aimed at exploring ways of testing the validity of the Litigant Hypothesis. Employing an empirical analysis that exploits recent amendments to Federal Discovery Rule 26, this Essay finds that the strongest predictor of noncompliance in a dataset of discovery decisions is indeed faulty briefs. …

I Could Have Been A Contender: Summary Jury Trial As A Means To Overcome Iqbal's Negative Effects Upon Pre-Litigation Communication, Negotiation And Early, Consensual Dispute Resolution, Nancy A. Welsh

Nancy Welsh

With its recent decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court may be intentionally or unintentionally “throwing the fight,” at least in the legal contests between many civil rights claimants and institutional defendants. The most obvious feared effect is reduction of civil rights claimants’ access to the expressive and coercive power of the courts. Less obviously, the Supreme Court may be effectively undermining institutions’ motivation to negotiate, mediate - or even communicate with and listen to - such claimants before they initiate legal action. Thus, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions have the potential to deprive …

"Dirty" Experts: Ethical Challenges Concerning, And A Comparative Perspective On, The Use Of Consulting Experts, David S. Caudill

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

U.S. attorneys often hire consulting experts who potentially never get named as testifying experts. The same practice is evident in Australia, where the colloquial distinction is between a “clean” and a “dirty” expert, the latter being in the role of a consultant who is considered a member of the client’s “legal team.” A “clean” expert named as a witness is then called “independent,” signaling that he or she is not an advocate. In contrast to the U.S. discourse concerning consulting and testifying experts, focused on discovery issues, the conversation in Australia betrays immediate ethical concerns that both (i) explain why …

The Sedona Principles (Third Edition): Continuity, Innovation, And Course Corrections, Thomas Y. Allman

Akron Law Review

The Sedona Principles and Commentaries in the Third Edition (2018) are worthy successors to those of the Second Edition (2007) and, in many respects, a substantial improvement. Principles 2, 5 and 8 build on the 2015 amendments to Federal Civil Rules, including amended Rule 26(b)(1), in advocating an increased emphasis on proportionality across the full spectrum of e-discovery activity. They also reflect a more nuanced view of Rule 26(b)(2)(B), added by the 2006 Amendments to deal with undue burden or costs, as does Principle 13 in regard to cost allocation, which recommends use of amended Rule 26(c) to the exclusion …

U.S. Discovery In A Transnational And Digital Age And The Increasing Need For Comparative Analysis, Vivian Grosswald Curran

Akron Law Review

U.S. discovery has long been a troublesome issue between the U.S. and civil-law nations. The passage of the Hague Convention on Evidence might have brought much-needed relief, but U.S. courts minimized its effects, favoring continued use of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Civil-law states passed blocking statutes or their equivalents as they sought to protect what they considered to be fundamental values of privacy and national sovereignty. With the rise of transnational litigation, Section 1782 discovery was intended to provide assistance to foreign courts and parties in litigation abroad by opening certain discovery channels in the U. S. to …

Still A Failure: Broad Pretrial Discovery And The Superficial 2015 Amendments, George Shepherd

Akron Law Review

Ever since broad discovery was permitted in 1938 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the system has been a failure. It has dramatically increased litigation’s cost and pain, with few balancing benefits. Broad discovery should be eliminated, returning the United States to the sensible approach of the rest of the world. In Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court went part of the way towards doing exactly that; the decisions eliminate discovery in many cases. The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules do little to cure the remaining major problems. Instead, broad discovery should be eliminated for all cases.

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 …

Discovery Innovation: Discovery Reform And Federal Civil Rulemaking, Brooke D. Coleman

Akron Law Review

Federal civil rulemaking—the process by which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are created and maintained—has simultaneously been described as a crisis and a crowning achievement. This Article departs from this binary and pragmatically turns to a consideration of how the committee operates. Using the lens of discovery reform, this Article examines how the rulemaking process has evolved over the past 35 years. The ups and downs of discovery reform have inspired the committee to adopt many modern rulemaking innovations. Those innovations, this Article argues, are critical to the success of the rulemaking process because they provide rulemakers with better …

Self-Destruct Apps: Spoliation By Design?, Agnieszka Mcpeak

Akron Law Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are at risk of being out of sync with current technology trends. In particular, ephemeralmessaging applications, or “self-destruct apps,” are changing the way we conceptualize digital records. These apps embrace the industry goal of “privacy by design,” a positive trend in minimizing the amount of data that is created and stored. Civil discovery, on the other hand, contemplates data retention and preservation, particularly as to electronically stored information. This Article identifies the conflict between privacy by design—particularly self-destruct apps—and the civil discovery rules. It cautions against treating self-destruct apps as spoliation by design and …

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 …

Breaking The Boilerplate Habit In Civil Discovery, Steven S. Gensler, Lee H. Rosenthal

Akron Law Review

No more boilerplate in discovery requests or responses. That is the clear message of the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inspired by that message, some judges have taken a firm stand, warning lawyers to change their ways or face serious sanctions. Will it be enough to root out practices deeply engrained in discovery culture? This Article examines the “anti boilerplate” rule changes and the cases applying them. We endorse the rule changes and applaud the judges who have spoken out. But if real change is to occur, more judges—many more judges—must join them. As judges consider …

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 …

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 …

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

Faculty Articles

Recent proposals to revise Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to incorporate cost allocation of discovery have sparked considerable controversy. Advocates for reform argue that replacing the long-standing “producer-pays” presumption with something more akin to a “requester-pays” rule would better align economic incentives and reduce litigants’ ability to wield discovery as an instrument to force settlement. Opponents argue that such a reform would limit access to justice by saddling requesters with an ex ante burden of funding the opposition’s discovery.

In this Article, we explain that either a rule requiring both parties to share the costs of discovery (“cost-sharing rule”) …

Bespoke Discovery, Jessica Erickson

Law Faculty Publications

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. With fee-shifting provisions, they can choose who will pay for these suits. And with arbitration clauses, they can make upfront decisions to opt out of the traditional legal system altogether. Parties can also waive their right to appeal, their right to a jury trial, and their right to file a class action. Bespoke procedure, in other words, is commonplace in the United States.

Far less common, however, are …

The Narrative Of Costs, The Cost Of Narrative, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

In Judge Victor Marrero’s Article “The Cost of Rules, the Rule of Costs,” he argues that too many lawyers use too many procedural devices to cause too much inefficiency within our civil justice system. His Article helpfully asks us to focus on the role of the lawyer and law firm economics in assessing how to solve waste and abuse in civil litigation. He proposes an array of procedural changes to address these perceived problems. In this response, I argue that Judge Marrero’s assertions about costs are questionable, given relevant empirical evidence. Moreover, although I am confident that there are instances …

Opting Out Of Discovery, Jay Tidmarsh

Journal Articles

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 …