Civil Procedure 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.

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.

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 (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Comment On Judge Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Service By Mail--Is The Stamp Of Approval From The Hague Convention Always Enough?, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Fractured Procedure: The Civil Justice Reform Act Of 1990, Lauren K. Robel

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Federal district courts have viewed the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 as a mandate to adopt procedural rules inconsistent with existing law. But in this article, Professor Robel argues that the Act neither compels nor authorizes such local deviations. Citing examples from reforms underway in district courts nationwide, Professor Robel contends that courts' assertions of broad rulemaking authority rest on a misreading of the Act and of the compromise between Congress and the judiciary that led to its passage. Professor Robel cautions that the goal of national uniformity underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be compromised …

The 1993 Revision Of Federal Rule 11, Carl Tobias

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.

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 …

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 …

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

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Toward A Liberal Application Of The "Close Of All The Evidence" Requirement Of Rule 50(B) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure: Embracing Fairness Over Formalism, Rollin A. Ransom

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the language and purposes of rule 50 to determine if and when a relaxed application of its requirements is appropriate. Part I considers the terms and goal of the rule and concludes that its purpose is to put the party opposing the motion for judgment as a matter of law on notice of the movant's assertion that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, and to provide the opposing party an opportunity to "cure." Part II discusses courts' varying application of the requirement that a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at …

Pro Se Litigants: Application Of A Single Objective Standard Under Frcp 11 To Reduce Frivolous Litigation, Brian L. Holtzclaw

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment addresses the application of Rule 11 sanctions to pro se litigants and argues that based on the language of Rule 11, the concerns expressed in the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 11, and the primary goal of Rule 11 to deter abusive pleadings, a single objective standard should be applied to all parties-attorneys, represented parties, and pro se litigants-to determine whether Rule 11 has been violated. Under this single objective standard, a pro se litigant's lack of legal representation should be considered only in determining the severity of the sanction, not in determining whether Rule 11 has been …

New Rule 50 May End Directed Verdicts For Plaintiffs, Michael J. Waggoner

Publications

No abstract provided.

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.

The Transformation Of Trans-Substantivity, Carl Tobias

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

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 …

Defining “Co-Party” Within Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 13(G): Are Cross-Claims Between Original Defendants And Third-Party Defendants Allowable?, John Bessler

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Application Of Rule 11 In The Fourth Circuit

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eighteen Feet Of Clay: Thoughts On Phantom Rule 4(M), Gene R. Shreve

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Giving Notice: An Argument For Notification Of Putative Plaintiffs In Complex Litigation, Marjorie A. Silver

Scholarly Works

Professor Silver advocates recognition of an inherent judicial power to send or authorize notice of pending litigation to potentially interested persons with unfiled claims. Recognizing such a judicial power is consistent with recent legal developments establishing a role for judges in expediting and managing federal litigation. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only explicitly provide for notice to potential parties in Rule 23 class action litigation, Professor Silver demonstrates that a more general judicial power to notify putative plaintiffs is consistent with the federal rules and the Constitution. She also shows that the first amendment values support a judicial …

Understanding Civil Procedure, By Gene R. Shreve And Peter Raven-Hansen, William M. Richman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

"Inherent Power" And Rule 16, How Far Can A Federal Court Push The Litigant Toward Settlement?, David A. Rammelt

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.

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.

Case Comment, Jeffry B. Gordon

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Case Comment discusses the ability of a United States plaintiff to serve process pursuant to the Hague Service Convention on a defendant residing in Japan. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the Convention generally prohibits service on foreign defendants by registered mail. This Case Comment discusses the history of the case, the objectives of the Convention, the law of service of process in Japan, and United States law of service of process on foreign parties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The author then discusses United States common law interpreting article 10(a) …

The Specificity Of Pleading In Modern Civil Practice: Addressing Common Misconceptions, Ian James Wilson, William Louis Payne

University of Richmond Law Review

The pleading procedure serves as the foundation for the entire legal process. Pleadings focus the issues, narrow the evidence admissible at trial, apprise the adverse party and the court of the matter in dispute, and provide the extent of the res judicata effect of the judgment. To secure the foundation and to effectuate the purposes of the pleading procedure, it is imperative that the pleading set forth sufficient allegations. The standard for determining the sufficiency of the allegations is referred to as the specificity requirement and serves as the focus of this Note.

Teaching Ethics In Civil Procedure Courses, Richard Matasar

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.