Civil Procedure Commons^™

Still A Failure: Broad Pretrial Discovery And The Superficial 2015 Amendments, George Shepherd

Akron Law Review

Ever since broad discovery was permitted in 1938 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the system has been a failure. It has dramatically increased litigation’s cost and pain, with few balancing benefits. Broad discovery should be eliminated, returning the United States to the sensible approach of the rest of the world. In Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court went part of the way towards doing exactly that; the decisions eliminate discovery in many cases. The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules do little to cure the remaining major problems. Instead, broad discovery should be eliminated for all cases.

Initial Disclosures: The Past, Present, And Future Of Discovery, Brittany K.T. Kauffman

Akron Law Review

This Article looks back at the origins of initial disclosures and the history of the course of several rule amendments. There was an attempt in the early 1990s to strengthen the federal disclosure rules, but the amendments were implemented inconsistently around the country, and the amendments were subsequently rolled back in 2000. Despite these early challenges, there has been a growing movement in support of initial disclosures as a way to address the growing cost and delay of civil litigation—and, in particular, the cost and delay of discovery. Pilot projects and efforts at the state and federal levels suggest a …

Discovery Innovation: Discovery Reform And Federal Civil Rulemaking, Brooke D. Coleman

Akron Law Review

Federal civil rulemaking—the process by which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are created and maintained—has simultaneously been described as a crisis and a crowning achievement. This Article departs from this binary and pragmatically turns to a consideration of how the committee operates. Using the lens of discovery reform, this Article examines how the rulemaking process has evolved over the past 35 years. The ups and downs of discovery reform have inspired the committee to adopt many modern rulemaking innovations. Those innovations, this Article argues, are critical to the success of the rulemaking process because they provide rulemakers with better …

Self-Destruct Apps: Spoliation By Design?, Agnieszka Mcpeak

Akron Law Review

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are at risk of being out of sync with current technology trends. In particular, ephemeralmessaging applications, or “self-destruct apps,” are changing the way we conceptualize digital records. These apps embrace the industry goal of “privacy by design,” a positive trend in minimizing the amount of data that is created and stored. Civil discovery, on the other hand, contemplates data retention and preservation, particularly as to electronically stored information. This Article identifies the conflict between privacy by design—particularly self-destruct apps—and the civil discovery rules. It cautions against treating self-destruct apps as spoliation by design and …

Practical Ways To Achieve Proportionality During Discovery And Reduce Costs In The Pretrial Phase Of Federal Civil Cases, Judge Paul W. Grimm

Akron Law Review

The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ambitiously sought to reduce pretrial delay, expense, and burden in civil cases. But the rules are not self-executing, and without active hands on judicial supervision and intervention where necessary to insure that the Rules are being applied as intended, there is a risk that the objectives of the amended rules will not be realized. This article discusses a number of common sense, practical, yet effective ways in which judges can fulfill their obligation to effectively manage their cases to achieve the goal of Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil …

Breaking The Boilerplate Habit In Civil Discovery, Steven S. Gensler, Lee H. Rosenthal

Akron Law Review

No more boilerplate in discovery requests or responses. That is the clear message of the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inspired by that message, some judges have taken a firm stand, warning lawyers to change their ways or face serious sanctions. Will it be enough to root out practices deeply engrained in discovery culture? This Article examines the “anti boilerplate” rule changes and the cases applying them. We endorse the rule changes and applaud the judges who have spoken out. But if real change is to occur, more judges—many more judges—must join them. As judges consider …

Asymmetry And Adequacy In Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications Of Haeger V. Goodyear, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Akron Law Review

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated a $2.7 million fee-shifting award imposed on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in response to rather egregious concealment of key testing documents concerning a failing tire blamed for a serious accident. Although the Court’s opinion does not foreclose imposition of substantial sanctions on remand, Haeger v. Goodyear stands as a rather stark illustration of the potential for discovery cheating to have comparatively little consequence—at least for the litigant if not counsel—if the cheating is not discovered until after conclusion of the matter. Although the perceived problem of excessive or overbroad discovery—“expansive discovery …

Attorney Negligence And Negligent Spoliation: The Need For New Tools To Prompt Attorney Competence In Preservation, Paula Schaefer

Akron Law Review

Though case law typically suggests otherwise, attorney negligence is the primary cause of negligent spoliation of evidence. With the advent of ediscovery, it became markedly more difficult for attorneys to competently guide their clients through the steps necessary to preserve evidence¾particularly the categories of evidence most likely to help an opponent in a case. Unlike intentional spoliation instigated by an attorney, negligent spoliation is not the product of calculation. If an attorney were to undertake a cost-benefit analysis, negligent spoliation would not be a rational choice. The field of behavioral legal ethics provides insight into other reasons attorneys fail to …

Malice Maintenance Is “Runnin’ Wild”: A Demand For Disclosure Of Third-Party Litigation Funding, Anusheh Khoshsima

Brooklyn Law Review

Third-party funding (TPLF) is when a nonparty, who does not have a direct stake in the litigation, funds a lawsuit. There are varying motivations that drive TPLF arrangements—including investors offering loans to receive a portion of the settlement or public interest groups sponsoring impact litigation. This note discusses a specific mode of TPLF that is motivated by a personal interest in the lawsuit rather than monetary gain, referred to as “malice maintenance.” At common law, maintenance was prohibited to prevent powerful and wealthy individuals form taking advantage of the court system. The majority of states today, however, permit at least …

A Status Update For Texas Voir Dire: Advocating For Pre-Trial Internet Investigation Of Prospective Jurors, Luke A. Harle

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Internet provides trial attorneys an additional tool to investigate the backgrounds of prospective jurors during voir dire. Online searches of a person’s name and social media accounts can reveal information that could be used as grounds for a challenge for cause or to facilitate intelligent use of peremptory strikes. Texas lawmakers have not yet provided any official guidance as to whether attorneys can investigate prospective jurors online or how they might do so, should it be allowed. Texas’s current voir dire structure, judicial opinions, and ethics opinions, together, support the notion that Texas trial attorneys should be given opportunities …

Stays, Portia Pedro

Faculty Scholarship

After judges issue orders or judgments, they often face the difficult task of making a determination even more complex than that of the underlying order, but in less time, with less guidance, and with high stakes. These judges are deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal — whether to prevent the enforcement of a court order or judgment until a court has decided the appeal. Although stays may seem to be a mere procedural technicality, stays are, instead, the new battleground for injunctive litigation. While review was pending, stay determinations have decided if abortion providers could operate in Texas, …

Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

A Review Of Civil Protection Orders In Six Jurisdictions, Wing Cheong Chan

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Traditional criminal and civil remedies are inadequate responses against the problem of domestic violence. The criminal justice system requires allegations to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the focus is on punishment for past acts instead of prevention of vio-lence from recurring, and the existing criminal offences do not fully cover the range of undesirable conduct. As for the civil justice system, the court processes take too long and are often incomprehensible to litigants-in-person, and there are no clear penalties imposed by the law even if an injunction is awarded by the court. In order to provide vic-tims of domestic violence …

When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

The rise of administrative patent validity review since the America Invents Act has rested on an enormous expansion of Patent Office authority. A relatively little-known aspect of that authority is the agency's statutory ability to intervene in Federal Circuit appeals from adversarial proceedings in its own Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Patent Office has exercised this intervenor authority frequently and with specific apparent policy objectives, including where one of the adverse parties did not participate in the appeal. Moreover, until recently, there has been no constitutional inquiry into the Article III standing that the Patent Office must establish in …

Better Briefs, Lydia Fearing

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Abstract forthcoming

Keep Suing All The Lawyers: Recent Developments In Claims Against Lawyers For Aiding & Abetting A Client’S Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Katerina P. Lewinbuk

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Lawyers have increasingly become subject to liability under various legal theories, ranging from traditional legal malpractice or negligence liability claims to various third-party actions. Most recently, state and federal courts across the country have recognized attorney liability for aiding and abetting a client’s breach of fiduciary duty. This Article will address the current status of the cause of action for a lawyer’s aiding and abetting her client’s breach of fiduciary duty, explain the commonalities and distinguish nuances as outlined by particular states, examine recent decisions by federal courts that have recognized the cause of action, and culminate in its conclusion …

It’S A Trap! The Ethical Dark Side Of Requests For Admission, Colin Flora

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Due largely to an overlap of authority between disciplinary bodies charged with supervising the professional conduct of attorneys and the authority of courts to supervise litigation, the ethical ramifications of routine discovery abuses often pass without comment. That is because disciplinary authorities routinely defer to courts to police litigation behavior despite courts frequently rejecting the role of enforcers of professional rules. A further contributing factor to unethical conduct becoming routine practice in discovery are ill-defined parameters and a dearth of guidance. One tool in particular, requests for admission, has gone overlooked in the literature and caselaw, but poses unique ethical …

Partisan Gerrymandering And The Illusion Of Unfairness, Jacob Eisler

Catholic University Law Review

Contemporary political discussions have given increasing attention on gerrymandering. Most discussions of gerrymandering focus on the practice’s illegitimate use as a weapon to distort popular democracy. This has been the Supreme Court’s focus as well, but all to no avail. The Supreme Court’s gerrymandering jurisprudence illustrates the difficulty in policing the practice, with the Court struggling to formulate a coherent test to determine when gerrymandering is permissible and when it runs afoul.

The increase focus on gerrymandering as a weapon invites a discussion whether the practice may is inherently illegitimate. This Article suggests two conditions, described as “partisan loyalty” and …

Policy Considerations And Implications In United States V. Bryant, Jessica Larsen

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Cat Scratch Fever: The Spread Of The Cat’S Paw Doctrine In The Second Circuit, Crystal Jackson-Kaloz

Catholic University Law Review

The phrase “cat’s paw” comes from an Aesop’s fable and has been used to define a person used by another as a tool or a scapegoat. The phrase was coined and injected into employment discrimination law by Judge Richard Posner in Shager v. Upjohn Co. and later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital. In Staub, the Supreme Court held that an employer could be liable for an adverse employment decision that was based on the recommendation of a supervisor who possessed a discriminatory or retaliatory bias against the adversely affected employee. However, the …