Search

The author notes that on August 15, 2013, the U.S. Advisory Committee on Civil Rules has proposed new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which have attracted much controversy from the legal community because of their stricter emphasis on proportionality in the civil discovery process. He predicts that the proposed revision to Civil Procedure Rule 37(e), which advocates the implementation of a uniform standard for spoliation sanctions, will have a major impact on litigation.

The article discusses the draft amendment to Rule 37 by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules that would introduce a uniform and nationwide set of standards to impose spoliation sanctions. According to the author, Rule 37(e) provides a safe harbor for the failure to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine operation of an electronic information system.

In this article, the author focuses on the irreconcilable conflict in respect with withdraw and counsel. It mentions that American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules 1.6 work reagrding information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary. It also mentions that lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation.

The article discusses concerns related to compensation of fact witnesses. Topics discussed include ethical concerns related to same can be traced to the Supreme Court's Olympian pronouncement of the rule in United States v. Bryan, ruling of New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, for compensation to unemployed, self-employed or retired persons; and advice for lawyers on such payments.

The author conveys his thoughts about the loophole in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Topics discussed include parallel language concerning where a deposition should be held, adjudication of disputes among adverse parties concerning the location of depositions, and the three general standards that courts apply in resolving the disputes.

The article focuses on need for updating Rule 12(f) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on sua sponte. Topics discussed include opinion of U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander that over-pleading is not grounds to grant a motion to strike, efficiently written opinion with authoritative citations that summarizes a specific point of procedural law, and a case Blevins v. Piatt in which applicable standards for evaluating a Rule 12(f) motion was reviewed.

The article discusses the ruling of senior U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett, on perceived civil discovery abuse in the court case Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories. It mentions on the three types of discovery abuse by counsel including making repetitive "form" objections, witness coaching, and excessive and unnecessary interruptions, and several arguments raised by appellants dispensed the ruling of the Eight Circuit.

The article discusses the court case, Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mixter, in which Mixter filed repeated motions to compel and for sanctions. Mark Mixter was a seasoned, successful Maryland civil trial lawyer who represented plaintiffs and defendants over a 35-year career. Court of Appeals, courts imposed discovery sanctions on him.

The article offers information on the case of Qualcomm v. Broadcom at the appellate courts. It mentions that in telecommunication firm Qualcomm, a U.S. magistrate judge imposed sanctions and referred six attorneys to California Bar Counsel for possible disciplinary action. It also mentions that Qualcomm had stonewalled its own lawyers.

The article describes litigations in which obstructive behavior by counsel conducting a deposition, counsel defending the witness, or the witness warranted imposition of sanctions in the U.S.

The article reports on the reformation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to address the growing complexity and expense of discovery. It mentions the proposal for "Duke Rules Package" which aims to reduce the presumptively allowable number of depositions and written discovery. It notes the approval of Standing Committee on all the proposals on May 29-30, 2014 which has been forwarded to the Judicial Conference in the U.S. for its effectivity that is expected to take effect on December 1, 2015.

The author provides update on the U.S. proposed Rule 37(e) providing a safe harbor for failure to supply electronically stored information [ESI] lost due to the routine and good-faith operation of an electronic information system. The author provides an overview on the list of factors used in regulating for the offending party's retained the information. The author also emphasizes the self-evident in the fairness of the rule in solving the problem and sanction for the wrongdoer.

The article focuses on the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on spoliation sanctions proposed by the U.S. Civil Rules Advisory Committee. Topics include the argument imposed by the members of the plaintiff's bar on the proposed amendments, effective judicial case management, and proportionality. Among the bar members that were mentioned include the National Employment Lawyers Association, the American Association of Justice, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The article discusses the changes in the works for key provisions of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It states the development of Duke Rules Package for limitations on discovery and spoliation sanctions by the Civil Rules Advisory Committee following a conference at Duke Law School in North Carolina May 2010. It also mentions the prohibitive costs of discovery and inaccessibility results for many litigants in federal courts.

The article discusses the author's reflection regarding the arrest of notorious World War II criminal Laszlo Csatary. It was in 1948 when he was convicted in absentia for complicity in the extermination of more than 15,000 Jews living in Kosice. The author comments that after reading the arrest and detention of Csatary, he immediate thought of the Rule 28 (b) (1) (A)-(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The article discusses court rules related to motion to dismiss a case in the U.S. as of summer 2013. It presents Rule 12 (d), "Result of Presenting Matters Outside the Pleadings" and Rule 12 (b) (6) under which the court may consider an extrinsic document that is integral to the complaint and whose authenticity is not contested. The author says under the rule, an integral document must be integral to the claim itself. It highlights many lawyers' failure to understand the rules.

The article focuses on a trend in civil procedure in the U.S. involving cost-shifting in discovery. It discusses the American Rule requiring each party to pay its own legal fees absent a statutory, contractual or common law basis for fee-shifting from the prevailing to the losing party. It examines the case Pippins vs. KPMG wherein the defendant was estimated to spend nearly 21 million dollars for discovery requests. Various cases wherein Rule 26 was invoked to impose cost-sharing are given.

The article reports on amendments to the Judicial Conference for Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure proposed by the U.S. Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. in June 2013. These changes were approved by the Judicial Conference at its September 2012 meeting. Revisions to the rule include the issuance of a subpoena from the court where the action is pending.

The article stresses the importance for lawyers to know the local rules not only in their home district but also in every district in which they are prosecuting or defending an action. Given example is the Local Rule 7-3 of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles titled "Conference of Counsel Prior to Filing of Motions." The requirements of this rule are discussed.

The article offers information on spolitation sanctions, wherein the defendant asserts from the start its possible entitlement to the maximum sanction of dismissal even without proof of the intentional or negligent hiding, withholding, alteration, or destruction of evidence pertinent to the proceeding. The author discusses the cases of Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of America and Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v Cammarata.

The article discusses the case Younger v. Harris, in which the U.S. Supreme Court explained the term federalism as sensitivity to legitimate interests of both State and National Governments. It mentions that federalism is an apt characterization of complex local rules that extrapolate from nationally codified rules of procedure. It informs that Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. is working on a uniform rule to address preservation and spoliation.

The article discusses issues related to electronic discovery (e-discovery) concerning the authenticity of documents by citing the court case, Ceglia v. Zuckerberg. The suit was filed by businessman Paul Ceglia against Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook Inc., claiming to own 50 percent of Facebook based on a contract signed by him with Zuckerberg in 2003. It highlights how the discovery of metadata can be expensive, delaying and cumbersome for the party requesting the metadata.

The article reports on the Amendment to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure which was adopted in 1937. It further states the amendments which are related with an attorney will sign each paper filed in the court, reducing unnecessary cost and ending perceived litigation abuses. It includes two changes by which sanctions became discretionary and creation of a "safe harbor" provision which provide notice to other party and right to withdraw paper without any penalty.

The article focuses on two U.S. court cases which depict differing conclusions in same cases by judges. It highlights Gallagher, Evelius & Jones LLP v. Joppa Drive-Thru Inc., in which intermediate court of appeals reviewed an order issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County granting a motion to compel production of documents by Gallagher, while appellate court affirmed the lower court without ruling on the merits of its analysis. It also discusses Andrea Davis v. Grant Park Nursing Home.

The article focuses on the remedial steps which a lawyer must take after knowing that his or her client has been testified falsely during deposition. It states that a lawyer should find out whether it was an honest mistake or an intentional lie. It suggests that lawyers should warn the client about the consequences of his or her perjury if a satisfactory explanation is not provided by them. It further recommends for creating a record by the lawyers with the client if he or she refuses to budge.

The article presents information on U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, who addressed several e-discovery issues for federal practitioners, with reference to a court case between Laura Zubulake and UBS Warburg LLC. The e-discovery issues included the scope of the duty to preserve electronic evidence during litigation; and the lawyer's duty to monitor clients' compliance with e-data preservation and production.

The article discusses the need to follow the existing rules instead of bringing more amendments for the law reforms. In May 2010, Duke University School of Law organized a conference on the Civil Rules to examine the issue of access, fairness, cost and delay in civil litigation process. Three studies conclude that 'one size fits all' rule is expansive and time-consuming. It is alleged that judges and lawyers do not use Rules 16 and 26 as they were supposed.

The article offers information on the significance of professionalism and collegiality of adverse lawyers in framing a well-functioning and cost-effective litigation process. Reportedly, collaboration of lawyers maintain the high standard of case law and avoids misconduct of witnesses with attorney during depositions. It discusses the recent case of GMAC Bank v. HTFC Corp., where serious sanctions can be imposed on the lawyer for not preventing his client from behaving abusively.

The article presents information on amendments to the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effective December 1, 2009. As stated, virtually all short deadlines have been extended, most filing periods of fewer than 30 days have been reset to multiples of 7 days, and other adjustments have been made, including establishment of a midnight deadline for electronic filing. Rule 15(a) and rule 48 have also been amended.

The article reports on the proposed Sunshine in Litigation Act in the U.S. It discusses the opposition of the American Bar Association to the bill due to many concerns including its adverse impact on the administration of justice, the absence of demonstrable deficiencies in Rule 26(c) and unwarranted limitation on the creation of protective orders by courts. Thomas M. Sussman, director of the ABA's Governmental Affairs office, and professor Sherman Cohn offer their insights on the bill.

The article focuses on the report issued by the American College of Trial Lawyers, together with the Institute for the Advancement of the Legal System about the required change of litigation system in the U.S. According to the report, the federal litigation is expensive, time consuming and is in serious need of repair. The report makes six recommendations called Principles including different sets of procedural rules, discovery in a particular legal issues and limited content in trial testimony.

The article discusses the issue concerning the applicability of the pleading standard for complaints in the antitrust context into the Sherman Act. It notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that in order to state a claim, the complaint must contain enough facts. Furthermore, a commentator contended that there was no warrant to extend the claim on the act, however, the court did not seek opinion and ignored the holdings suggesting that it intends to impose the new pleading standard.

The article focuses on the proposed amendments of Rule 26 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure concerning the expert witness' draft reports and communications with the lawyer. An overview of the old rule is provided, along with the problems inherent in the rule with respect to expert testimony. Under the proposed changes, draft expert reports in court proceedings will be safeguarded from disclosure in all federal cases, and the protection extends to attorney-expert communications.

The article discusses electronic discovery (e-discovery) in law, in relation to the Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe case. It states that e-discovery can be dangerous for lawyers, one conclusion which was drawn from the case's decision taken by magistrate Paul Grimm. It informs that there was no bad faith by the producing lawyers and no efforts to conceal damaging electronically stored information (ESI) in this case. The parties had identified a joint protocol to search and retrieve ESI.