Civil Procedure Commons^™

Politics And Sociology In Federal Civil Rulemaking: Errors Of Scope, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

In April 2000 the United States Supreme Court promulgated a package of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that took effect on December 1, 2000, without Congressional intervention. As one commentator observed, “(a)ll of (the proposed amendments) promise to have a significant effect on discovery practice.” One Proposed Amendment--narrowing the scope of discovery available pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1)--was particularly controversial before both the Advisory Committee, the Standing Committee, and the Judicial Conference. Nonetheless, the Proposed Amended Rule narrowing scope proceeded from the Court to finality with no intervention by Congress. Proponents of the change minimized criticism by …

Identifying Real Dichotomies Underlying The False Dichotomy: Twenty-First Century Mediation In An Eclectic Regime, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Some people (lawyers, scholars, judges, dispute resolvers, policymakers) are more concerned about fidelity to procedural protocols while others are more concerned with the substantive rules governing disputes and substantive outcomes. Those in the dispute resolution community preferring facilitation tend to be proceduralists. For them, the observance of proper procedure is a high goal, perhaps the dominant goal. They reason, often implicitly, that adherence to the rules of procedure is the essence of neutrality, fairness, and the proper role of a dispute resolving apparatus. At some level, usually subconscious, there is a post-modern philosophical aspect of this preference. Because humans cannot …

Discovery In International Legal Developments Year In Review: 1998, Christopher J. Borgen

Faculty Publications

American procedure regarding international discovery stems from 28 U.S.C. §§ 1781-1783, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in particular Rule 28(b). The leading case on the topic of international discovery is the Supreme Court's decision in Société Nationale Industielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court. Many later cases base their reasoning on interpretations of Aerospatiale. This article is a brief review of developments during the year.

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 …

Contracting Access To The Courts: Myth Or Reality? Bane Or Boon?, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Many scholars of the dispute resolution system perceive a sea change in attitudes toward adjudication that took place in the mid-1970s. Among the events of the time included the Pound Conference, which put the Chief Justice of the United States and the national judicial establishment on record in favor of at least some refinement, if not restriction, on access to courts. In addition, Chief Justice Burger, the driving force behind the Pound Conference, also used his bully pulpit as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to promote ADR, particularly court-annexed arbitration. The availability of judicial adjuncts such as court-annexed arbitration …

Discovery In International Legal Developments Year In Review: 1997, Christopher J. Borgen

Faculty Publications

U.S. law provides litigants with a variety of means to obtain evidence from foreign jurisdictions. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the Federal Rules) and rules of state courts may be used if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over the person who is in control of the evidence in question. Section 1783 of tide 28 of the United States Code provides a means for serving a subpoena on U.S. nationals or residents abroad. Litigants may also obtain foreign discovery through letters rogatory as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1781 and treaties such as the Hague Convention on Taking Evidence (the …

Discovery In International Legal Developments Year In Review: 1996, Christopher J. Borgen

Faculty Publications

American procedure regarding international discovery stems from 28 U.S.C. §§ 1781-83, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP or Rule) 28(b). Broadly speaking, these rules are concerned with the mechanics of assessing requests for discovery in the United States to assist a proceeding in a foreign country and attempts by one or more parties before a U.S. court to obtain evidence located in another country. This article serves as a brief review of developments during the year.

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 …

Automatic Disclosure And Disuniformity In The Ninth Circuit, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

The 1993 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) imposes automatic disclosure and is the most controversial formal proposal to revise the Federal Rules ever developed. The provision requires litigants to divulge information that is important to their cases before commencing formal discovery. The amendment also permits all ninety-four federal districts to vary the revision or to reject it completely. Moreover, judges and parties in specific cases may modify any disclosure requirements adopted by the districts.

The amendment has remained controversial since it became effective on December 1, 1993. Less than a majority of districts subscribe to the Federal …

Halting Devolution Or Bleak To The Future? Subrin's New-Old Procedure As A Possible Antidote To Dreyfuss's "Tolstoy Problem", Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Professors Rochelle Dreyfuss and Stephen Subrin first presented their ideas on the 1993 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Civil Rules) at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) in a program titled, “The 1993 Discovery Amendments: Evolution, Revolution, or Devolution?” After the program, I was left with the depressing view that the answer was devolution, which is defined as a “retrograde evolution,” or “degeneration.” Dreyfuss provides a detailed but succinct review of the changes in discovery occasioned by the new rules as well as a vantage point for assessing the social and …

Discovery Cost Allocation: Comment On Cooter And Rubinfeld, Edward H. Cooper

Articles

Discovery practice continues to be the single most troubling element of contemporary procedure. To be sure, the system seems to work well in a high proportion of all federal cases. The proportion may seem astonishingly high in relation to the amount of attention devoted to discovery. The discovery problems that occur in a relatively small proportion of the federal caseload, however, impose serious burdens on the parties and the court system. Every proposal that addresses discovery "abuse" deserves serious attention. These comments focus on the discovery abuse portion of the paper by Cooter and Rubinfeld. Questions are posed that may …

Rediscovering Discovery: Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange And Association V. Fisons Corporation, Brian J. Beck

Seattle University Law Review

Section I of this Article will present a model of the adversarial system and argue that the discovery process, although a component of that system, cannot function under the model. Section II lays out the facts of the Fisons case, the arguments presented by each side, and the court's decision. Section III discusses a survey conducted by the Author, which sought to ascertain the decision's impact on members of the Seattle bar. Utilizing survey results and observations regarding the adversarial system, the section then pinpoints some potentially troublesome issues left unresolved by the court and suggests ways to resolve them.

Mandatory Disclosure And Local Abrogation: In Search Of A Theory For Optional Rules, Lauren K. Robel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Waiver: A Comprehensive Analysis Of A Consequence Of Inadvertently Producing Documents Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, Roberta M. Harding

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The inadvertent production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege frequently occurs in contemporary litigation. This phenomena becomes more prevalent as the number of cases involving inadvertent document production grows. Unfortunately, given the present modes for resolving the waiver issue that stems from this occurrence, this occurrence could threaten to become the rule rather than the exception. The increased frequency of inadvertent document production is due primarily to more disputes arising out of production of documents demands by the opposing party that emerge as parties request the production of an increasing number of responsive documents. As a result, the sheer …

New Paradigm, Normal Science, Or Crumbling Construct? Trends In Adjudicatory Procedure And Litigation Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

One aspect of a possible new era is the increasing ad hoc activity of various interest groups, including the bench and the organized bar, primarily pursued through official organizations such as the Judicial Conference, the Federal Judicial Center, the American Bar Association (“ABA”), and the American Law Institute. Traditionally, of course, judges and lawyers have lobbied Congress and state legislatures for litigation change, as demonstrated by the saga of the Rules Enabling Act (“Enabling Act” or “Act”). But, the legal profession's more recent “political” activity regarding litigation reform differs from the traditional model in several ways. First, the participation of …

Conducting Informal Discovery Of A Party's Former Employees: Legal And Ethical Concerns And Constraints, Susan J. Becker

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Work Product Rejected: A Reply To Professor Allen, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This article responds to Professor Ronald Allen's Work Product Revisited: A Comment on Rethinking Work Product.

Sanctions, Symmetry, And Safe Harbors: Limiting Misapplication Of Rule 11 By Harmonizing It With Pre-Verdict Dismissal Devices, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

With only a small risk of overstatement, one could say that sanctions in civil litigation exploded during the 1980s, with the 1983 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 acting as the principal catalyst. From 1938 until the 1983 amendment, only two dozen or so cases on Rule 11 were reported, with courts rarely imposing sanctions. Although a few cases were notable by virtue of sanction size, prestige of the firm sanctioned, or publicity attending the underlying case, the legal profession largely regarded Rule 11 as a dead letter. In addition, other sanctions provisions, such as Federal Rule of …

Rethinking Work Product, Elizabeth G. Thornburg

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This article analyzes the traditional and law & economics explanations purporting to justify the exclusion of work product materials from discovery. It argues that none of these arguments are well founded and that, instead, the privilege increases costs and decreases the system's ability to produce appropriate settlements and accurate fact finding. To the extent that the privilege serves legitimate ends, narrower and more narrowly tailored protections would provide the necessary protection.

Summary Judgment Before The Completion Of Discovery: A Proposed Revision Of Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 56(F), John F. Lapham

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note discusses the purpose of summary judgment in a regime of notice pleading. Part II examines how the federal courts have interpreted and applied rule 56(f). Part III suggests that rule 56(f) be modified to require a more significant factual showing before a court may grant a continuance for further discovery. In addition, Part III examines the policy considerations that support a more stringent rule. Finally, Part IV provides a hypothetical example illustrating the benefits of this proposal.

Inadvertent Waiver Of The Attorney-Client Privilege By Disclosure Of Documents: An Economic Analysis, Alan J. Meese

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Unsolved Problem In Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule Of Aerospatiale, William L. Wilks, Nancy E. Goldberg

Penn State International Law Review (1982 - 2011)

In the Aerospatiale decision, the United States Supreme Court attempts to define the powers of American courts to compel discovery from foreign litigants in those courts, in light of the Hague Evidence Convention. This article initially examines the various interpretations of the Convention used to solve the "apples/oranges" problem, encountered by litigants from different nations and incompatible jurisprudential systems, when they seek to obtain evidence located outside the U.S. or in the control of a foreign litigant. The Court's response to this problem is later addressed by an analysis of its decision, which seems to confuse the situation further, for …

A Distorted Mirror: The Supreme Court's Shimmering View Of Summary Judgment, Directed Verdict, And The Value Of Adjudication, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

As almost anyone alive during the past decade knows, this is the era of the ‘litigation explosion,’ or there is at least the perception that a litigation explosion exists. Although all agree that the absolute number of lawsuits has increased in virtually every corner of the state and federal court systems, there exists vigorous debate about whether the increase is unusual in relative or historical terms and even more vigorous debate about whether the absolute increase in cases symbolizes the American concern for fairness and justice or represents a surge in frivolous or trivial disputes needlessly clogging the courts. As …

Report On Survey Of The Bar, Committee On Federal Courts Of The New York State Bar Association

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ex Parte Interviews With Enterprise Employees: A Post-Upjohn Analysis, Louis A. Stahl

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discovery In State And Federal Smcra Proceedings, G. Daniel Kelley Jr., Stephen M. Terrell

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Protective Orders Prohibiting Publication Of Information Obtained Through Discovery, Joseph A. Almeida

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Nonparty Document Discovery From Corporations And Governmental Entities Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Jay C. Carlisle

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This Article will analyze the various approaches courts follow when deciding if a nonparty can be compelled to produce documents located outside the judicial district where a rule 45 subpoena duces tecum is issued. Part I will review the procedure for nonparty document discovery and discuss the decisional law applying the enforcement provisions of rule 45. Part II will analyze the jurisdictional principles used by federal district courts to determine when documents under the control of nonparties, and not located within the territorial limits of the court, should be produced for discovery purposes. Part III will recommend the appropriate approach …

Proof Of Claim Forms And Discovery Of Absent Class Members: Violations Of Rule 23 Policy Or Essential Devices?

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rehnquist, Recusal, And Reform, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

In September 1986, the Senate confirmed William H. Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the United States by a vote of 66 to 33, an unusually close vote for a successful Supreme Court nominee. Although Justice Rehnquist’s elevation from Associate to Chief Justice engendered substantial criticism because of his judicial philosophy, past political activity, and possible views on race relations, the most serious threat to his nomination arose from his decision fifteen years earlier to sit and cast the deciding vote in a Supreme Court case in which many questioned both his impartiality and his candor. That Justice Rehnquist's role in …