Law Commons^™

Third-Party Modification Of Protective Orders Under Rule 26©, Patrick S. Kim

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that similarly situated litigants always should be given access to protected discovered materials, while nonlitigants should gain access to protected materials only in exceptional circumstances. This approach effectively balances the privacy and property interests of the original parties and the intervening parties with the interests of adjudicative efficiency. Part I establishes that there is no general public right of access to civil discovery and that courts should disregard such purported rights when considering whether to modify a protective order. Part II identifies three interests that courts should weigh when considering whether to modify a protective order: the …

Mandatory Disclosure Can Improve The Discovery System, Angela R. Lang

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Suggestions For Circuit Court Review Of Local Procedures, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

During the 1980s, both the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is the policy-making arm of the federal courts, and Congress evinced increasing concern about the proliferation of local civil procedures, such as local rules and the procedures that individual judges apply The Judicial Conference and Congress were particularly troubled by those local procedural requirements that conflicted with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules) or provisions of the United States Code.

In 1986, the Judicial Conference commissioned the Local Rules Project to collect and organize all local rules, standing orders of individual judges, and other local procedural …

Rambo As Potted Plant: Local Rulemaking's Preemptive Strike Against Witness-Coaching During Depositions, David H. Taylor

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Perspectives: The Federal Rules' Quest For Efficiency, Susan J. Becker

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

As lawyers celebrate (or mourn) the first anniversary of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is worth noting that last year's amendments marked a major philosophical metamorphosis in our theory of civil justice. They reflect an attempt to move away from a system aptly suited to war analogies and toward increased cooperation between the parties and "hands-on" management by the judiciary. This, in turn, is supposed to encourage efficiency--the oft-cited yet elusive goal of civil justice reform.