Civil Procedure Commons^™

Gush. Small Et Al., Order On Defendant Lankford's Motion To Compel Discovery And Plaintiffs' Motion For Protective Order, John J. Goger

Superior Court of Fulton County: Metro Atlanta Business Case Division Opinions

No abstract provided.

Frances B. Bunzl Et Al., Order On Plaintiffs' Motion For Determination Of Admlssibility Of Documents, John J. Goger

Superior Court of Fulton County: Metro Atlanta Business Case Division Opinions

No abstract provided.

The Past And The Present: Stare Decisis In Wisconsin Law, Daniel R. Suhr, Kevin Leroy

Marquette Law Review

None

What Do You Know? Discovering Document Compilations In 39(B)(6) Depositions, Sara Leonetti

Washington Law Review

The work product doctrine emerged as a judicially created, practical solution to resolve problems inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). While the FRCP famously sought to broaden discovery and increase parties’ access to information, the rules infamously failed to prevent attorneys from discovering each other’s work product. For policy reasons—primarily to keep some semblance of the adversarial system—the U.S. Supreme Court created work product qualified immunity to prevent attorneys from discovering their opponents’ work, mental impressions, and legal strategies. At the end of the twentieth century, courts significantly extended the work product doctrine when they began to …

Forum Clauses At The Margin, James P. George

Faculty Scholarship

This article will first dispel the historical account and demonstrate an enforcement history that was reasoned and fairly consistent in England, but erratic in the United States, yielding to an ever-increasing contract-autonomy view after Bremen. The history concludes with concerns about what is now the Bremen/Atlantic Marine presumption (referred to under either case name depending on the context and time frame), including its encouragement of summary analysis and enforcement. To illustrate this extreme, the last section focuses on a Fifth Circuit decision that, with its cursory analysis and extreme favoring of enforcement, leaves significant questions unanswered—a result the law should …

Samaca, Llc, Order On Defendants' Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses And Plaintiff Samaca, Llc's Cross Motion To Compel Arbitration Of Defendant's Motion For Legal Expenses, Alice D. Bonner

Superior Court of Fulton County: Metro Atlanta Business Case Division Opinions

No abstract provided.

Nancy Johnson Et Al., Order On Discovery Dispute, Kelly Lee Ellerbee

Superior Court of Fulton County: Metro Atlanta Business Case Division Opinions

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Removal Without Approval? Corporate Litigative Authority To Consent To Federal Removal Where Adverse Parties Are Co-Equal Shareholder Co-Directors, James M. Mcclure

William & Mary Business Law Review

The Case of Swart v. Pawar involved a novel question of law: can a president of a corporation claim authority on behalf of that corporation to consent to federal removal in a suit against a co-equal shareholder co-director even though that president lacks board approval or explicit authority from the business’s bylaws or charter? To address this question, the parties in Swart analogized removal to suit initiation and defense. Since the federal courts hearing the case did not assess the validity of these analogical arguments or a president’s removal authority generally, this Note evaluates the analogies as well as several …

Consequences For Patent Owners If A Patent Is Unconstitutionally Invalidated By The Patent Trial And Appeal Board, Mark Magas

Chicago-Kent Law Review

There have been many constitutional challenges against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) since it was created by the America Invents Act in 2011. While the merits of these challenges have been widely debated, there has been little analysis of what would happen if one of these challenges succeeded and patents are found to have been unconstitutionally invalidated. This note examines how issues with waiver, retroactivity, and finality may prevent patent owners from getting their patent rights back, considering the type of constitutional challenge and the different stages of the PTAB process. While the odds are stacked against patent …

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 …

The Procedure Of Patent Eligibility, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A decade ago, the patent-eligible subject matter requirement was defunct. Several recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have made eligibility the most important issue in many patent cases. To date, debates over the resurgent doctrine have focused mainly on its substance. Critics contend that the Supreme Court’s case law makes patents too easy to invalidate and discourages innovation. Supporters emphasize that the Court’s decisions help eradicate the overly broad patents often asserted by so-called patent trolls.

Yet one important consequence of eligibility’s revival has been procedural. Because district courts often view eligibility to present a pure question of law, they are—for …

The Discrimination Presumption, Joseph A. Seiner

Notre Dame Law Review

Employment discrimination is a fact in our society. Scientific studies continue to show that employer misconduct in the workplace is pervasive. This social science research is further supported by governmental data and litigation statistics. Even in the face of this evidence, however, it has never been more difficult to successfully bring a claim of employment discrimination. After the Supreme Court’s controversial decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, all civil litigants must sufficiently plead enough facts to give rise to a plausible claim. Empirical studies show that this plausibility test has been rigidly applied in …

Pleading Conditions Of The Mind Under Rule 9(B): Repairing The Damage Wrought By Iqbal, A. Benjamin Spencer

Faculty Publications

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in which it pronounced-among other things- that the second sentence of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-which permits allegations of malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of the mind to be alleged "generally" -requires adherence to the plausibility pleading· standard it had devised for Rule 8(a)(2) in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. That is, to plead such allegations sufficiently, one must offer sufficient facts to render the condition-of-the-mind allegation plausible. This rewriting of the standard imposed by Rule 9(b)'s second sentence-which came only veritable moments after the Court …

Drummond Financial Services, Llc, Order On Pending Motions And Discovery Disputes, John J. Goger

Superior Court of Fulton County: Metro Atlanta Business Case Division Opinions

No abstract provided.

Morris Hardwick Schneider, Llc Order Striking Defendant Divot Holdings, Llc's Answer, Kelly Lee Ellerbee

Superior Court of Fulton County: Metro Atlanta Business Case Division Opinions

No abstract provided.

Mystery Subpoena Case At Supreme Court Could Expand Us Authority, Peter B. Rutledge, Amanda W. Newton

Popular Media

This article examines the D. C. Circuit’s underlying decision In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, that expands the possibility that a federal criminal subpoena could override a claim of sovereign immunity when also coupled with an invocation of a foreign blocking statute.

Cambridge Swinerton, Llc, Order Denying Defendant New Alenco Windows, Ltd.'S Motion To Transfer Venue, Alice D. Bonner

Superior Court of Fulton County: Metro Atlanta Business Case Division Opinions

No abstract provided.

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court added the injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgments. The prior restraint label resembles a death sentence. This article maintains that such massive retaliation is overkill.

A judge’s injunction that forbids the defendant’s tort of defamation tests Near and prior restraint doctrine because defamation isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Arguing that the anti-defamation injunction has outgrown outright bans under the prior restraint rule and the equitable Maxim that “Equity will not enjoin defamation” …

The Renaissance Of Permissive Interlocutory Appeals And The Demise Of The Collateral Order Doctrine, Michael E. Solimine

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Reserving appeals to final judgments has a long history in the federal courts, as do exceptions to that rule. The problem has less been the existence of the exceptions, but rather their scope and application. This article addresses two of those exceptions. One is permissive interlocutory appeals codified in section 1292(b) of the Judicial Code. That exception, requiring the permission of both the trial and appellate courts, has numerous advantages over other exceptions, has been frequently touted as such by the Supreme Court, and has been applied in several recent high-profile cases. In contrast, the collateral order doctrine, an ostensible …