Law Commons^™

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 …

What Federal Rulemakers Can Learn From State Procedural Innovations, Seymour Moskowitz

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Discovering Discovery: Non-Party Access To Pretrial Information In The Federal Courts 1938-2006, Seymour Moskowitz

Law Faculty Publications

In the modern era, the pretrial process is critical to the disposition of almost all litigation. The vast majority of cases never go to trial. Those which are contested at trial and upon appeal are often decided upon the results of the information gather before trial. This is true in both private litigation and in public interest cases where "private attorneys general" may only function effectively with court-enforced discovery. Despite the significance of the Article III courts to our society, transparency in their processes for resolving civil disputes has been severely compromised. Threats to openness emanate from multiple sources. This …

The Past And Future Of The Federal Rules In State Courts, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Response to Prof. John B. Oakley's writings comparing state court procedural rules with the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

Professor Oakley's substantial contribution to the Nevada Law Journal dispute resolution symposium neither accords much treatment to how or why the earlier uniformity between state and federal procedural regimes changed so dramatically over such a brief period nor proffers very many suggestions for the future. My response aspires primarily to scrutinize how federal-state consistency deteriorated and secondarily to consider what, if any, measures should be instituted to change the present condition of state civil procedure in the fifty jurisdictions comprising the …

A Civil Discovery Dilemma For The Arizona Supreme Court, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The drafters of the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hoped to establish those rules as a model that the states could adopt, thus fostering national and intrastate procedural uniformity. This objective was not realized generally or by very many specific jurisdictions. Observers of the increasingly fractured procedural regime in the federal arena have voiced concerns about the mounting numbers of strictures, the accelerating pace of procedural change and the growing inconsistency of the requirements imposed. Illustrative are the major 1983 and 1993 federal discovery amendments, which new discovery provisions further revised in December 2000. The Civil Justice Reform Act …

The 2000 Federal Civil Rules Revisions, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

During April 2000, the United States Supreme Court prescribed a comparatively thorough set of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These amendments took effect in December 2000. That development represented the culmination of a rule revision proceeding commenced in 1996 by the Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Advisory Committee). Because certain provisos that the Supreme Court included in the 2000 amendments are rather controversial and could alter significant features of modern federal civil litigation primarily involving discovery, these revisions deserve assessment. This Essay undertakes that effort by emphasizing changes in mandatory prediscovery, …

A Modest Reform For Federal Procedural Rulemaking, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Following the adoption of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery in 2000, Prof. Tobias notes the lack of empirical research or other indication of how the new rules might work in practice preceding their enactment. He suggests that Congress should reconsider a reject 1983 amendment to F.R.C.P. 83 which would authorize courts to obtain Judicial Conference approval to test promising mechanisms for five years before adoption.

Congress And The 2000 Federal Civil Rules Amendments, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

In April 2000, the United States Supreme Court promulgated, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist transmitted to the United States Congress, a comprehensive package of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking arm of the federal courts, had forwarded these proposals to the Supreme Court in September 1999, and the Justices transmitted the amendments to Congress without making any modifications. The new group of federal rules amendments warrants assessment for two reasons. First, a few provisions in the package of revisions are comparatively controversial and could significantly change important aspects …

Discovery Reform Redux, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The recent resolve of the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules to revisit reform of the discovery rules, which the Supreme Court revised as recently as 1993, is replete with ironies. In August, 1998, that Committee, which has primary responsibility for studying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and developing suggestions for their improvement, published proposals that would significantly revise the substantial 1993 revisions of the discovery rules. Ironies suffuse many specific aspects of the rule revision process and of the proposals to revise the 1993 revisions less than five years after their implementation. I emphasize the proposal to revise …

Did The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990 Actually Expire?, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA) was intended to reduce the expense and delay associated with federal district court litigation by requiring courts to study and adopt new procedures. The CJR.lrs gains, however, may be erased by the uncertainty surrounding its sunset provision. Professor Tobias argues that Congress or the Judicial Conference should resolve the uncertainty by proclaiming that the CJRA has expired, thus forcing districts to abrogate procedures inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Some Realism About Federal Procedural Reform, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

A New Confederacy? Disunionism in the Federal Courts is a thought-provoking tour de force about many ills that federal court observers believe plague the modem federal district courts. In Disunionism, Professor Paul Carrington paints a perceptive portrait of the troubling conditions that he asserts impede civil litigation in a number of districts, and he trenchantly criticizes district judges for their contributions to these circumstances while admonishing the Judicial Conference to sweep "our national courts clear of all local clutter."

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 …

The Transmittal Letter Translated, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The letter in which Chief Justice Rehnquist transmitted to Congress amendments to various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which became effective on December 1, 1993 is reproduced. Professor Tobias then offers his "translation" of the letter with his interpretation of what likely took place during the rule revision process involving the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules, emphasizing the controversial revision of F.R.C.P. Rule 11.

1993 Federal Rules Amendments And The Montana Civil Rules, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

On December 1, 1993, the most comprehensive package of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules) in their half-century history became effective. Although the revisions include a number of changes that are relatively innocuous, modifications in Rule 11 governing sanctions and Rule 26 requiring mandatory pre-discovery or automatic disclosure were and remain controversial. The amendment to Rule 11 altered the 1983 revision of that Rule which had proved to be the most controversial amendment ever developed. The amendment to Rule 26 prescribing automatic disclosure was the most controversial formal proposal changing the Rules in their history. These …

Opt-Outs At The Outlaw Inn: A Report From Montana, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Report of Prof. Tobias' CLE presentation at the Montana State Bar Association's annual meeting, highlighting the 1993 revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Justice Reform Act.

Civil Rights Procedural Problems, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 primarily to modify numerous Supreme Court opinions of the 1988 Term that jeopardized the rights of minorities and women. Particularly striking about those Supreme Court cases was the number which involved procedural questions and process values. These included the timing of litigation, both when employment discrimination victims must commence actions and when non-parties can reopen civil rights cases resolved through consent decrees; litigant responsibility for the expense of lawsuits; and proof requirements.

Most of the procedural developments in civil rights and employment discrimination litigation of the 1988 Term, however, were only recent …

The Transformation Of Trans-Substantivitiy, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Linda Mullenix and Professor Gene Shreve have recently ventilated two intertwined issues at the core of modern federal civil procedure. They questioned scholars' growing criticism of the idea that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are trans-substantive. Both writers also asked about the increased emphasis that commentators have accorded procedure's detrimental effects on specific rights, such as civil rights, and on particular groups or litigants, such as minorities. The preferable response to these plaints is a single word: Congress. Because the issues that Professors Mullenix and Shreve raise are thought-provoking, however, they deserve elaboration.

An Independent Public Law, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

This Article analyzes the application of numerous Federal Rules in public law litigation to show how the resurrection of private law approaches and hostility toward public interest litigants serves to disadvantage public interest litigants. The assessment is intended to discourage such future enforcement of the Federal Rules and analogous judicial treatment in other areas of public law. The Article is also meant to foster greater appreciation of public law and the articulation of a larger complement of public law principles so as to facilitate the growth of an independent public law.

Public Law Litigation And The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The public interest litigant is no longer a nascent phenomenon in American jurisprudence. Born of the need of large numbers of people who individually lack the economic wherewithal or the logistical capacity to vindicate important social values or their own specific interests through the courts, these litigants now participate actively in much federal civil litigation: public law litigation. Despite the pervasive presence of public interest litigants, the federal judiciary has accorded them a mixed reception, particularly when applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Many federal courts have applied numerous Rules in ways that disadvantage public interest litigants, especially in …