Civil Procedure Commons^™

#Sowhitemale: Federal Civil Rulemaking, Brooke D. Coleman

Northwestern University Law Review

116 out of 136. That is the number of white men who have served on the eighty-two-year-old committee responsible for creating and maintaining the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The tiny number of non-white, non-male committee members is disproportionate, even in the context of the white-male-dominated legal profession. If the rules were simply a technical set of instructions made by a neutral set of experts, then perhaps these numbers might not be as disturbing. But that is not the case. The Civil Rules embody normative judgments about the values that have primacy in our civil justice system, and the rule-makers—while …

The Virtues Of Complexity: Judge Marrero's Systemic Account Of Litigation Abuse, Charles M. Yablon

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Access To Justice, Rationality, And Personal Jurisdiction, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

After more than twenty years of silence, the Supreme Court has addressed personal jurisdiction six times over the last six Terms. This Article examines the Court’s recent decisions in terms of their effect on access to justice and the enforcement of substantive law. The Court’s new case law has unquestionably made it harder to establish general jurisdiction—that is, the kind of jurisdiction that requires no affiliation at all between the forum state and the litigation. Although this shift has been justifiably criticized, meaningful access and enforcement can be preserved through other aspects of the jurisdictional framework, namely (1) the basic …

The Cost Of Rules, The Rules Of Costs, Victor Marrero

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

#Sowhitemale: Federal Civil Rulemaking, Brooke D. Coleman

NULR Online

116 out of 136. That is the number of white men who have served on the eighty-two-year-old committee responsible for creating and maintaining the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The tiny number of non-white, non-male committee members is disproportionate, even in the context of the white-male-dominated legal profession. If the rules were simply a technical set of instructions made by a neutral set of experts, then perhaps these numbers might not be as disturbing. But that is not the case. The Civil Rules embody normative judgments about the values that have primacy in our civil justice system, and the rule-makers—while …

Valley Health Sys. V. Estate Of Jane Doe, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Sept. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Amanda Stafford

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court acted within its discretion in sanctioning the party for discovery violations. Further, it determined that the district court’s citation to the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct causes reputational harm that amounts to a sanction and that the district court correctly found that the attorneys did in fact violate Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).

Guidelines And Best Practices For Large And Mass-Tort Mdls (Second Edition), Bolch Judicial Institute

Bolch Judicial Institute Publications

Mass-tort MDLs dominate the federal civil docket, yet they present enormous challenges to transferee judges assigned to manage them. There is little official guidance and no rules specific to the management of mass-tort MDLs, often requiring the transferee judge to develop procedures out of whole cloth.

Beginning in 2013, the Bolch Judicial Institute (then the Center for Judicial Studies) sought to address this issue through a series of annual bench-bar conferences. From these conferences came the Guidelines and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs document — now in its Second Edition — which is designed to help judges and …

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 …

A Fox In The Henhouse: Applying California's Delayed Discovery Rule In Federal Court, Samuel Donohue

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

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. …

One Rule To Compensate Them All, Noam Sher

West Virginia Law Review

The article claims that there is a unique compensation criterion that should be applied in all civil wrongs, inter alia, in tort, intellectual property and property law. Where an individual wrongfully infringes the right of another, the taker should be obliged to repay the victim her damages plus half the additional attributed net profits derived from the taking. This article names this criterion the Golden Rule. The suggested criterion contains three main components. First, for example, a firm increased manufacturing with profits of $1,000, acted wrongfully, and, as a result, someone suffered damages of $600-the taker should pay the victim …

... Because "Yes" Actually Means "No": A Personalized Prescriptive To Reactualize Informed Consent In Dispute Resolution

Marquette Law Review

None.

Personal Jurisdiction And Aggregation, Scott Dodson

Northwestern University Law Review

Aggregation—the ability to join parties or claims in a federal civil lawsuit—has usually been governed by subject matter jurisdiction, claim and issue preclusion, and the joinder rules. These doctrines have tended to favor aggregation for its efficiency, consistency, and predictability. Yet aggregation is suddenly under attack from a new threat, one that has little to do with aggregation directly: personal jurisdiction. In this Article, I chronicle how a recent restrictive turn in personal jurisdiction—seen in modern cases narrowing general jurisdiction and October Term 2016’s blockbuster case Bristol-Myers Squibb—threatens the salutary benefits of aggregation across a number of areas, including …

Interlocutory Appeals In New York-Time Has Come For A More Efficient Approach, David Scheffel

Pace Law Review

Currently, the appellate division must decide an enormous number of appeals every year.7 In light of this caseload crisis, New York must reevaluate its generous approach to interlocutory appeals.8 This Comment discusses how the appellate division can deal most efficiently with interlocutory appeals. Part II describes the history of interlocutory appeals in New York, since the creation of the appellate division. Part III explains how other jurisdictions treat interlocutory appeals. Part IV presents the current caseload crisis in the appellate division. Part V describes the controversy over unlimited interlocutory appealability. Part VI evaluates how New York can streamline its approach …

The Limited Standing Rule Of Chapter 380: Substantial Interests Lost In The Process, Jaimie A. Ross

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

N. Nev. Homes V. Gl Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 2, 2018), Jeff Chronister

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the district court’s awarding of attorneys fees and costs was appropriate following bifurcated trials in which the parties settled as to damages on Northern Nevada Homes’ claims in an amount that exceeds GL Construction’s damages on its counterclaim because: 1) no statute or court rule requires the trial court to offset a damages judgment on one party’s counterclaim by the amount recovered by another party in settling its claim to determine which side is the prevailing party, and 2) the most reasonable interpretation of NRS 18.010(2)(a) and 18.020(3) precludes the use of settlement recovery for this …

A Characterization Of The Medical-Legal Partnership (Mlp) Of Nebraska Medicine, Jordan Pieper

Capstone Experience: Master of Public Health

This research study was completed at Legal Aid of Nebraska’s Health, Education, and Law Project through the partnership it has formed working with Nebraska Medicine and Iowa Legal Aid. Traditionally, health and disease have always been viewed exclusively as "healthcare" issues. But with healthcare consistently growing towards holistic approaches to help patients, we now know there are deeper, structural conditions of society that can act as strong driving forces of a person's poor daily living conditions that can negatively impact health. The importance of a Medical-Legal Partnership is that it considers a patient's social determinants of health (SDHs). The goal …

20th Annual Open Government Summit: Access To Public Records Act And Open Meetings Act, 2018, Department Of Attorney General, State Of Rhode Island

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

10

Labarbera V. Wynn Las Vegas, Llc, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying by video conference from Italy and when it cited the incorrect legal standard to exclude evidence of appellant’s intoxication.

Trial Practice And Procedure, John O'Shea Sullivan, Tala Amirfazli, Adelyn B. Boleman

Mercer Law Review

The 2017 survey period yielded noteworthy decisions relating to federal trial practice and procedure in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, several of which involved issues of first impression. This Article analyzes recent developments in the Eleventh Circuit, including significant rulings in the areas of civil procedure, statutory interpretation, and federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Getting Schooled: The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit Holds That The Federal Government Need Not Show "Good Cause" Before Settling And Dismissing A Pending Qui Tam Action Against College, Laura Leigh Fox

Mercer Law Review

In United States v. Everglades College, Inc., a case of first impression in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the court interpreted the good cause intervention requirement of § 3730(c)(3) of Title 31 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The court was asked to determine whether the United States needed to show "good cause" for intervening in a qui tam action brought by two private individuals under the False Claims Act (FCA). The government, after originally declining to proceed with the FCA action itself, eventually decided to "intervene" while the action was pending on the …

"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 …

Access To Justice: Impact Of Twombly & Iqbal On State Court Systems, Danielle Lusardo Schantz

Akron Law Review

Approximately a decade ago, the Supreme Court of the United States unexpectedly changed the pleading standard for federal cases with the Twombly and Iqbal decisions. Plausibility pleading replaced the more liberal notice pleading standard endorsed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Since then, state courts have been faced with a choice to either mirror this change in pleading standards or maintain their commitment to notice pleading. Plausibility pleading has begun to creep into the state court system. Several states have formally changed their pleading standards, while others have declared their commitment to notice pleading. This Article considers the impact …

Long Gone! When To Recall Discharged Juries, Maria T. Ciccolini

Akron Law Review

In June 2016 the Supreme Court ruled in Dietz v. Bouldin that federal judges in civil cases could, in order to amend a flawed verdict, reuse a jury that was discharged and long gone. Under this ruling, by the time the court or the attorneys recognize the inconsistent ruling, the jury could and likely will have been profoundly prejudiced, therefore violating the claimant’s right to a fair trial afforded to him by our democratic system of justice. The prejudice test implemented by the Court in Dietz is not detailed enough to tighten the reins on judicial discretion and ensure that …

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 …