Litigation Commons^™

Litigating A Novel Course And Scope Of Employment Issue: Ina Of Texas V. Bryant, J. Thomas Sullivan

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, Margaret T. Burns

Michigan Journal of International Law

This note asserts that the Hague Convention is not the exclusive vehicle available to U.S. litigants for taking evidence abroad. It argues that in certain circumstances, U.S. courts should allow litigants to use the more liberal methods of the Federal Rules when seeking evidence from party litigants in other signatory nations.

Discovery In Kentucky: An Overview, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Discovery receives short shrift in the law school curriculum. Although students are introduced to the subject in a first year course on Civil Procedure, the "bathtub effect" usually takes its toll by graduation day. That is, after the first year, the plug is pulled and the student's knowledge drains away. Moreover, it is difficult to teach discovery in third year programs on trial advocacy. Too much emphasis on discovery and pretrial would leave too little time for instruction on the mechanics of the actual trial. Even the experienced practitioner may not remember all the intricacies of discovery and may find …

Discovery Of Nonparties' Tangible Things Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Sarah N. Welling

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 describe procedures for pretrial discovery. While one may employ all the methods of discovery against parties, discovery methods for nonparties are much more limited. For example, with the exception of the independent action under subdivision (c), the procedures detailed in Federal Rule 34 regarding production of tangible things do not apply to nonparties. Frequently, though, a litigant must discover tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of a nonparty. Although the federal rules do provide alternative methods for the discovery of nonparties' things, the whole discovery scheme for nonparties is rather …

Legal Ethics And Class Actions: Problems, Tactics And Judicial Responses, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Perhaps no procedural innovation has generated more controversy than the class action. As Professor Arthur Miller has observed, debate over “class action problem[s]” has raged at several different levels. For example, opponents and proponents of class actions disagree on whether such actions produce socially desirable results in an economical fashion and whether an already overburdened judiciary can handle the additional supervisory demands of the class action. Recently, a somewhat more ideological dialogue has addressed the merit of publicly funded class actions. Such questions arise only indirectly in the context of class action litigation. However, a certain hostility toward class actions …

Interview Notes Of Government Agents Under The Jencks Act, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Most courts that have considered the issue have concluded that the Jencks Act does not require the government to retain and produce rough interview notes. This Note examines the language and purpose of the Act to determine whether interview notes should be considered Jencks Act statements. Part I examines the policy underlying the Jencks Act and argues that the majority position sanctioning pre-trial destruction of interview notes conflicts with these statutory purposes. Part II discusses the statutory language and argues that the status of the witness as a government agent or a private individual determines the applicable section of the …

Curbing Litigation Abuses: Judicial Control Of Adversary Ethics—The Model Rules Of Professional Conduct And Proposed Amendments To The Rules Of Civil Procedure, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article addresses the effectiveness of recent developments and proposals related to abusive litigation, and discusses them in the context of recent opinions illustrating the power of the trial judge to control the excesses of the adversary system. It rejects the countersuit as a time-consuming and costly means of controlling litigation abuses, and concludes that “tinkering changes” in the rules of procedure cannot bring about true reform. It is urged here that the burden resulting from abuse of litigation can only be relieved by changes which foster stronger judicial control of adversarial ethics, and greater judicial involvement in the pretrial …

Light-Hearted Thoughts About Discovery Reform, John W. Reed

Other Publications

I am delighted to be here among friends from various settings and associations over the years. Having been unable to arrive until late last evening, I am in a poor position to offer useful commentary on what has been said here. But no matter-that is not my assignment. You have heard enough words of wisdom for one weekend. My pleasant assignment is to offer some "light-hearted" comments on discovery reform. I hope they do not prove to be "light-headed" as well.

Disclosure Of Grand Jury Materials Under Clayton Act Section 4f(B), Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note analyzes the controversy and concludes that the latter courts are correct: Congress never intended to abrogate or modify rule 6(e)'s "particularized need" standard when it enacted section4F(b). Part I discusses whether Congress intended section 4F(b) to require the Attorney General to disclose grand jury materials to state attorneys general upon request, thereby abrogating rule 6(e)'s explicit prohibition against such disclosure. Part II examines the statutory language and legislative history of section). 4F(b) to determine whether Congress intended section 4F(b) to modify rule 6(e)'s "particularized need" standard. Finally, Part III evaluates the policies affected by liberalized disclosure of grand …

A Proposed Amendment To Rule 26(B)(4)(B): The Expert Twice Retained, Andrew J. Miller

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This article will focus on whether the hiring of the free agent as a non-trial expert, in order to conceal information from other parties to the litigation, is in keeping with the underlying goals and values of present discovery practice. Part I of this note discusses the discoverability of experts in general, then examines the various rationales underlying the so-called unfairness doctrine supporting the trial/non-trial expert distinction. Part II presents the case for divergent treatment of the free agent and the regularly retained expert. Subpart A of that section will explain the lack of judicial scrutiny in this area, while …

Discovery And Presentation Of Evidence In Adversary And Nonadversary Proceedings, E. Allan Lind, John Thibaut, Laurens Walker

Michigan Law Review

In order to evaluate fully the advantage claimed for the adversary model we sought to add a third element that would test the hypothesis under a variety of conditions. The degree to which the evidence discovered in a case favors one party at the expense of another appeared to meet this criterion. This fact-distribution element is a pervasive condition of legal conflict resolution that, intuition suggests, may significantly influence information search and transmission. Further, this variable could be easily and accurately controlled by regulating the flow of favorable information acquired by the subjects during the experiment.

The remainder of this …

The Consumer Class Action, Arthur H. Travers Jr., Jonathan M. Landers

Publications

No abstract provided.

Procedural Problems Of Class Suits, Joseph J. Simeone

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this article is to discuss numerous aspects of the class device, to discuss the many procedural problems confronting court and counsel, to determine the effectiveness of one type of class suit-the spurious-and in the conclusion, to propose legislation for a new rule independent of the rules regarding class actions, a remedy which would more effectively permit the dispatch of numerous claims arising from similar fact patterns.

The Civil Investigative Demand: New Fact-Finding Powers For The Antitrust Division, Richard L. Perry, William Simon

Michigan Law Review

The complexity, scope and length of modem antitrust litigation bring to prominence the procedures by which evidence - particularly documentary evidence - is discovered and placed before the courts and administrative agencies. Fact-finding mechanisms now available for ferreting out and prosecuting violations make up an imposing array. These include the grand jury subpoena, the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the subpoena and visitorial powers of certain administrative agencies. The "civil investigative demand," a precomplaint compulsory process, is a new weapon proposed to be added to this arsenal. Few dispute the desirability of new …