Civil Procedure Commons^™

Davis V. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Aug. 27, 2026), Tristen Fleig

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In Davis v. Dist. Ct., the Supreme Court upheld the court's authority to issue orders and impose sanctions during discovery, after Petitioner claimed NAC 641.234(3) limited the court's authority to order disclosure of psychologist data.

Zhang V. Zhang, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 18, 2026), Nathan Mackay

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Even when a party has violated their disclosure requirements, a district court must analyze the Young factors before issuing a discovery sanction that effectively terminates the case with prejudice.

Transparency In Third-Party Litigation Funding: A Pathway To Protect America’S National Security Interests, Madison D. Gonzalez

Catholic University Law Review

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has opened the courtroom doors for many Americans who may otherwise not be able to afford to seek justice in America’s civil court system. The democratization of the civil court system has benefitted many Americans but the lack of transparency as to the true identities of those behind the litigation has sparked concerns that America’s foreign adversaries may weaponize TPLF to harm America’s national security interests through lengthy and costly litigation. To address this threat, Congress and state legislatures have begun to explore policy changes to increase transparency in TPLF. Several states have adopted disclosure requirements …

Peeking Inside The Black Box: Discovery In Fair Housing Act Cases Arising From Ai Decision Making, Jessica Mahon Scoles

Faculty Scholarship

In today’s real estate market, more housing decisions are being automated. If artificial intelligence renders a biased decision, will the person impacted have any legal recourse? Commentators have expressed concern that the proprietary nature of AI will allow defendants in discrimination lawsuits to avoid discovery, effectively shielding their decision making from judicial scrutiny. This article examines whether AI and algorithm-related information is the discovery black box that some fear it to be.

Addressing the issue in the context of Fair Housing Act (FHA) litigation, the article argues that concerns about access to AI and algorithm-related discovery are overstated. In real …

Standards For Imposition Of Discovery Sanctions, Maine Law Review

Maine Law Review

The adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 marked a major change in the theory of the trial system in the federal courts. The new procedures of the Rules were designed to eliminate disposition of cases based on technical errors and encourage resolution on the merits of each controversy. The pleading rules were greatly simplified and full discovery provisions were incorporated to inform the parties regarding the basis of each adversary's claim or defense and to provide greater access to evidence bearing on the dispute. The optimal use of pre-trial discovery under the Rules, however, depends upon …

Symposium Transcript, In Re Opioid Litigation: The Trial Phase, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

In October 2023, Touro Law Center held a two-day conference on “The Past and Future of Opioid Litigation.” The inspiration for the conference was an extraordinary five-month jury trial in Suffolk County presided over by Hon. Jerry Garguilo. The trial, which was the first in the United States to include all parties in the pharmaceutical supply chain, from manufacturers to wholesale distributors to retail sellers, began in the summer of 2021. Ultimately, in 2022, the case settled. This allowed Judge Garguilo and attorneys from the case – Jayne Conroy, who represented one of the plaintiffs, Suffolk County, and Harvey Bartle, …

Symposium Transcript, In Re Opioid Litigation: The Pretrial Phase, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

In October 2023, Touro Law Center held a two-day conference on “The Past and Future of Opioid Litigation.” The inspiration for the conference was an extraordinary five-month jury trial in Suffolk County presided over by Hon. Jerry Garguilo. The trial, which was the first in the United States to include all parties in the pharmaceutical supply chain, from manufacturers to wholesale distributors to retail sellers, began in the summer of 2021. As Touro Law Dean Elena Langan notes in her introductory remarks below, because of the pandemic, the trial began and continued for a period of time in the auditorium …

An Updated Practical Guide To Taking And Defending Depositions, Gary S. Gildin

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The deposition offers a singular opportunity to handcuff the deponent to an irreversible script. Consequently, both the attorney taking the deposition and defending counsel must prepare for and conduct the deposition with equal if not greater care than the trial.

Traditionally, lawyers have used the deposition to discover facts relating to the legal elements and the credibility, perception, and recollection of the witness. However, recent breakthroughs in neuroscience as to how the brain makes decisions have revealed a different genre of evidence that will drive how the trier of fact will decide the case. Today an attorney taking a deposition …

The Liv Golf V. Pga Tour Antitrust Case As A Case Study In Federal Civil Procedure, Michael J. Dube

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article uses LIV Golf Inc. v. PGA Tour, Inc., a sophisticated and headline-grabbing antitrust matter, as a means of instantiating federal civil procedure concepts. The first Part of this Article addresses the unsuccessful motion for a temporary restraining order that in many ways shaped how the litigation proceeded. The second Part examines the dance that is discovery through a focus on a drawn-out dispute regarding a single interrogatory. The final Part drills down on a more novel discovery dispute that began the path towards settlement, namely whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and related common-law doctrine …

Can Litigation Analytics Tell Us What Became Of The 2015 Proportionality Amendments To The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure?, Patricia W. Moore

Faculty Articles

In 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery were amended for the seventh time in 40 years–part of a cyclic effort to address the so-called “cost and delay” of litigation. The centerpiece of the amendments was the reconfigured requirement that requested discovery be “proportional to the needs of the case,” in addition to being relevant and nonprivileged. The concept of “proportionality” crystallized the 2015 amendments in a single mantra. The proposed amendments inspired passionate and polarized public reactions. Plaintiffs’ attorneys opposed them as an impediment to obtaining the discovery they needed to prove their case, particularly in …

Producing Procedural Inequality Through The Empirical Turn, Danya Shocair Reda

University of Colorado Law Review

Procedural rulemaking and scholarship have taken an empirical turn in the past three decades. This empirical turn reflects a surprising consensus in what is otherwise a highly divided field and an inherently adversarial system. Because procedural rules distribute legal power in society, they invariably raise questions about who should have access to courts, information, and the means to defend one's legal rights. While debate rages about these normative commitments, procedure has developed a surprising epistemic agreement on empiricism, with its promise of rising above these competing interests with data. In procedure, the turn toward empiricism has become a strategy for …

Should The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Be Amended To Address Cross-Border Discovery?, Michael M. Baylson, Steven S. Gensler

Other Faculty Publications

Civil discovery in federal court increasingly involves information from sources located outside of the United States. Parties may or may not be required to pursue cross-border discovery through international agreements like the Hague Evidence Convention. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide surprisingly little guidance on how the Hague process fits within the rules scheme. This article identifies the regulatory gaps and proposes that the rulemakers undertake a project to potentially address some of those gaps.

For Whom The Sol Tolls: Examining The Role Of The Discovery Rule And Statutes Of Limitations In Ncaa Concussion Litigation, Joseph Sabin Esq., Andrew L. Goldsmith Ph.D.

UNH Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appealing Compelled Disclosures In Discovery That Threaten First Amendment Rights, Richard L. Heppner Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta that a California anti-fraud policy compelling charities to disclose the identities of their major donors violated the First Amendment. That holding stems from the 1958 case NAACP v. Alabama where the Court held that a discovery order compelling the NAACP to disclose the names of its members violated the First Amendment right of free association because of the members’ justifiable fear of retaliation.

In the over sixty years since NAACP v. Alabama, the Court has only decided a handful of cases about how compelled disclosures of …

[Marked Confidential]: Negative Externalities Of Discovery Secrecy, Gustavo Ribeiro

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Current unprecedented levels of secrecy in civil discovery create significant negative externalities by preventing our adversary system from measuring up to the broad public goals that justify it. First, excessive discovery secrecy undermines the courts and the public’s ability to correct distortions of the truth-seeking function of the adversary system caused by excessive partisanship and confirmation bias. Second, it weakens the adversary system’s promotion of liberal democratic values, such as transparency and self-government. Third, it threatens the adversary system’s role in upholding human dignity, understood either as respect or status. To correct the negative externalities caused by excessive discovery secrecy, …

The Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(E) And Achieving Uniformity Of Case Law On Sanctions For Esi Spoliation: Focusing On The “Intent To Deprive” Culpability Under Rule 37(E)(2), Jung Won Jun, Rockyoun Ihm

Catholic University Law Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) was adopted in 2015 primarily to resolve the circuit split and promote uniformity of case law on ESI (electronically stored information) spoliation sanctions. This Article examines relevant case law under the new Rule 37(e) and finds that courts have treated similar spoliation conduct differently due to the lack of a clear standard for finding the spoliator's intent to deprive another party of the use of the destroyed ESI at issue. This inconsistency has been exacerbated by the courts’ inconsistent reliance on their inherent authority to sanction based on bad faith analyses. Therefore, this Article …

The Shifting Sands Of Cost Shifting, Andrew M. Pardieck

Cleveland State Law Review

The cost-shifting analysis employed by the federal courts in ruling on discovery disputes is flawed. There is tremendous variability in how courts interpret the factors guiding the analysis. There is tremendous variability in the information courts rely on in deciding whether to preclude the discovery or shift its costs. The result is waste for the litigants, courts, and society as a whole. This Article argues that there is a better way: mandate cooperation before cost shifting. The courts should condition proportionality and cost-shifting rulings on cooperation. The cooperation should be substantive: require disclosure of objective information about the disputed discovery …

The Privacy-Protection Hook In The Federal Rules, Steven Gensler, Lee Rosenthal

Other Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Some Limits On The Judicial Power To Restrict Dissemination Of Discovery, Thomas C. Bradley

Maine Law Review

The pretrial process of discovery governed by Federal and Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 26 enables plaintiffs in product liability actions to delve where few people have delved before—into a corporation's internal memoranda, competitive practices, and secret product or design information as well as other less sensitive information in a company's possession. Discovery, in this context as in others, is a powerful tool determined by the courts to be necessary for the just litigation of claims. As a balance to the leeway given parties to compel production of information in discovery, federal and Maine courts have the authority under Federal …

Navigating The Discovery Chess Match Through Effective Case Management, Philip Favro

Akron Law Review

The challenges with civil discovery are often overwhelming. At times, counsel may feel powerless to avoid discovery quagmires and the resulting costs and delays. Nevertheless, counsel can guide a matter through these complexities if they learn how to better manage the discovery process. In Navigating the Discovery Chess Match through Effective Case Management, I expound on three methods that can facilitate case management in discovery.

The first emphasizes the benefits of proportionality in resolving preservation disputes over electronic data. The next involves providing early and more fulsome initial disclosures to enhance the FRCP 26(f) discovery conference. The final method focuses …

Civil Procedure And Economic Inequality, Maureen Carroll

Articles

How well do procedural doctrines attend to present-day economic inequality? This Essay examines that question through the lens of three doctrinal areas: the “irreparable harm” prong of the preliminary injunction standard, the requirement that discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case, and the due process rights of class members in actions for injunctive relief. It concludes that in each of those areas, courts and commentators could do more to take economic inequality into account.

The Practitioner’S Guide To Properly Responding To Requests For Disclosure Under The Texas Discovery Rules, Robert K. Wise, Kennon L. Wooten

St. Mary's Law Journal

Discovery, a pretrial procedure used to obtain information relating to the litigation, generally is the largest cost of civil litigation. By its very nature, discovery also is intrusive and invasive. Many practitioners are quick to dispute discovery requests, slow to produce information requested, and all too-eager to object at every stage of the discovery process.

This article relates to one of the most common types of written discovery—Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194 disclosure requests, the responses to which are often incomplete and inadequate. Disclosure requests provide inexpensive, basic discovery without the delay relating to objections or work-product assertions. This …

Discovery Hydraulics, Seth Katsuya Endo

UF Law Faculty Publications

Discovery reforms invariably have unexpected consequences. But the growth of electronically stored information has led to one constant — an ever-increasing pressure on the finite resources of both the judiciary and litigants. Courts, through their discovery rules, direct where that pressure will be channeled. But like any force in a closed system, it must be sent somewhere, ultimately requiring difficult tradeoffs amongst the three mainstay procedural justice norms of accuracy, efficiency, and participation. Discovery Hydraulics explores this phenomenon, cataloging how recently proposed or implemented document discovery reforms affect these norms.

In creating the first purposive taxonomy of recent document discovery …

Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley

Michigan Law Review

Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …