Civ Pro Outline 2016

8/18/2019 Civ Pro Outline 2016

1/37

CIVIL PROCEDURE OUTLINE

Dispute Pre-Filing Filing Pleading & Complaint Response Discoer! "ummar! #udgment $otions Trial %' or less( Post Trial )ppeal

Introduction

Pleading* Documents %complaint & ans+er(

Discovery* parties proide eac, ot,er +it, eidence

Summary judgment* ou.e got a smo/ing gun

Trial* ONL RE)"ON 0E 1)VE TRI)L" I" TO RE"OLVE F)CTU)L DI"PUTE"

Post-trial motions: dictated 2! t,e rules

Federal Courts* District courts Circuit Courts "upreme Courts

Where do the rules come from?

o Congress ,as po+er to create lo+er 3ederal courts and po+er to regulate t,e procedure o3 t,ose courts

T,e! delegated t,is po+er to t,e "up4 Court

• Rules are made 2! an adisor! committee

o FRCP 5 6789: "C 5 679

oals of the F!CP !ules:

o FRCP 6* ensure a ;ust< speed!< and ine=pensie determination o3 eer! action

o FRCP >* T,ere is one 3orm o3 action: ciil action

T,is s!stem is dependant on 2eing adversarial4

o Ot,er countries let ;udges decide +,at claims< eidence aaila2le< as/ ?uestions

o Cons* Can 2e e=pensie< assumes 2ot, parties ,ae e?ual access to s/illed la+!ers< and ,ae resources

"vervie# of $urisdictional Conce%ts:

o I3 !ou 3ile in t,e +rong place< it can get t,ro+n out

o @6886 & @688>

&rt III ' governs judiciary

"ets up t!pes o3 cases t,at t,e 3ed ct can ,ear

motion* a re?uest to t,e ct to ta/e some /ind o3 action %not a pleading: it is a re?uest 3or an order(

Aeit,er moed to dismiss or a motion to dismissB motion is a noun( not a ver)**

order* t,e action o3 a ct %ta/es an action 2! issuing an order(

allegations* statements made in num2ered Ps o3 t,e complaint

sua sponte* ct dismisses t,e case on its o+n

evidence* +,at is used to proe 3acts

to file* to delier to t,e court

to serve* got it to t,e person

+to serve %rocess,* to su2mitgiesend summons and complaint

%rocess* t,e complaint & summons

res%onse* )n argument or 2rie3 presented in ans+er to t,at o3 a moant< appellant< or petitioner4

earing* on a motion< unli/e a trial +,ic, is on 3actual disputes

Personal . Su)ject /atter $urisdiction Com%ared

T#o Court systems 0main difference is S/$1

23 Federal

a4 Limited ;urisdiction* onl! ,ae "$# i3 constitution and Congress allo+ it 24 P# not limited 2! 6t, amendment due process clause %onl! applies to states< not 3ed got(c4 t, amendment imposes its o+n limits on t,e po+er o3 3ed courts to e=ercise P#

43 State

a4 eneral ;urisdiction* ,ae "$# unless Congress e=plicitl! ma/es t,e claim e=clusie to 3ederal courts 24 "tates ,ae a VER 2road ;urisdiction4 Can ,ear ;ust a2out an!t,ing %minus li/e patent la+(


2/37

84 Concurrent jurisdiction: +,en state and 3ederal court simultaneousl! ,ae "$# oer a la+suit

5 !e6uirements for a court to have %o#er7authority over a la#suit

64 "u2;ect $atter #urisdictiona4 #urisdiction oer t,e nature o3 t,e case and t!pe o3 relie3 soug,t

i4 Federal uestion #urisdiction %>9 U4"4C4 @ 6886(ii4 Diersit! #urisdiction %>9 U4"4C4 @ 688>%a((

64 "upplemental #urisdiction>4 Personal #urisdiction % Personam Jurisdiction(

a4 Po+er o3 a court to enter ;udgment against a speci3ic G 24 Constitutional re?uirement )rt4 III< "ection >c4 Territorial geograp,ical limitation

84 Venuea4 Created 3or conenience: re?uired 2! statute< not t,e constitution %>9 U4"4C4 @@ 6876< 6H< 6H(

o# do the %arties initially state and res%ond to legal claims?

P89&DIS

Pleading a document in +,ic, t,e plainti33 sets 3ort, its claims and position on t,e 3actual and legal issues in disputePurposes* 64 gie notice

>4 proide a mec,anism 3or read! testing o3 legal su33icienc! o3 a claimProcedural "!stems*

64 Rules pleading %Jnotice pleading.( %FRCP(a4 Certain states and 3ederal courts re?uire t,at t,e complaint contain Aa s,ort & plain statement o3 t,e claimB

>4 Code Pleading %J3act pleading.(a4 Certain states re?uire t,at t,e complaint contain releant 3acts t,at gie rise to a claim 24 Emp,asis is on t,e pleading 3acts* statement o3 3acts su33icient to put t,e de3endant on notice o3 +,at cause o3

action %Co)( is 2eing pleadedc4 E4g4< "4C4* "CRCP ;0a1* Claims 3or relie3* Aa pleadingKs,all containKa s,ort & plain statement o3 t,e 3acts

s,o+ing t,e pleader is entitled to relie3Bi4 Need more 3actual details

ii4 Need more tec,nical detail s,ould plead enoug, detail to s,o+ t,e court t,at t,ese are the ultimate facts rather than mere conclusions of law

84 Common La+a4 A+rit s!stemB

24 I3 t,e .s disputed issue did not 3it in ,er +rit s,e ,ad c,osen at t,e outset o3 t,e case t,e court +ould dismiss!ule ( ans+er to a complaint%8( ans+er to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim%( ans+er to a crossclaim%( t,ird-part! complaint%( ans+er to a t,ird-part! complaint%M( a repl! to an ans+er< i3 t,e court orders one

Com%laints

Com%laint t,e initial pleading t,at starts a ciil action and states t,e 2asis 3or t,e courts ;urisdiction< t,e 2asis 3or t,e plainti33sclaim< and t,e demand 3or relie3

Eer! complaint must contain t,ree t,ings*64 ) As,ort and plain statement o3 t,e grounds 3or t,e court.s ;urisdictionBa4 Personal #urisdiction 24 "u2;ect $atter ;urisdiction

>4 ) As,ort and plain statement o3 t,e claim s,o+ing t,at t,e pleader is entitled to relie3B %needs legal & 3actual su33icienc!(84 ) Ademand 3or relie3 soug,t< +,ic, ma! include relie3 in t,e alternatie or di33erent t!pes o3 relie3B

otice %leading 0!ule %leading1 pleading is su33icient i3 it put t,e De3endant on notice o3 +,at s,e ,ad 2een sued 3or: T#i6)al

imposed an additional Aplausi2ilit!B re?uirement 3or 3actual allegations

-Conley v. Gibson pleadings must Agie De3endant 3air notice o3 +,at t,e Plainti33.s claim is and t,e grounds upon +,ic, it restsB

-In re Pl!+ood )ntitrust Litigation Aa complaint still must contain eit,er direct or in3erential allegations respecting all t,e material

elements necessar! to sustain a recoer! under some ia2le legal t,eor!


3/37

Code %leading7 Fact %leading re?uirement o3 statements o3 A3actsB or Aultimate 3actsB %,ig, detail< rat,er t,an AclaimsB(

constituting t,e cause o3 action< in ordinar! and concise language< +it,out repetition< and in suc, a manner as to ena2le a person o3common understanding to /no+ +,at is intended %3ormalism o3 language in t,e pleading(

In rules pleading< Astatement o3 claimB< not Astatement o3 3actB%leading the evidence plainti33 +,o alleges 3acts too speci3icall! %claims are dismissed 3or stating legal conclusions4(%leading conclusions of la# plainti33 +,o alleges 3acts too generall! %usu4 don.t get t,ro+n out 3or 2eing more speci3ic4(

too much detail vs too little detail

De3endant tested legal su33icienc! 2! 3iling a general demurrer to t,e complaint %does not e=ist in Federal Court 6>%2(%( motion(4Pro)lem: calls 3or ,ig,l! detailed pleading too di33icult to 3ull! researc, all t,e 3acts needed to 2ring a complaint before one caninitiate t,e action< and t,us meritorious Plainti33s can not 2ring t,eir complaints in time 2e3ore t,e statute o3 limitations e=pires

In FRCP 9%a(%>(< dra3ters lo+ered t,res,old o3 detail speci3icit! 2! eliminating t,e +ord A3actsB< 2ut t,e part! must stillallege some 3actual in3ormation t,at +ill lend to t,e elements o3 t,e claim to t,e e=tent t,at it is true4 %Rule 9%a(%>( 2elo+(

S3C3 Standards

"CRCP 9 ) pleading s,all contain*

%6( s,ort and plain statement o3 t,e grounds including 3acts and statutes upon +,ic, t,e court.s ;urisdiction depends041 short and %lain statement of the F&CTS sho#ing that the %leader is entitled to relief

%8( pra!er or demand 3or ;udgment 3or t,e relie3 o3 +,ic, ,e deems ,imsel3 entitled: relie3 in t,e alternatie or o3 seeral di33erent t!pes ma! 2demanded4

Stroud v3 !iddle %"upreme Court o3 "4C4(Residents o3 separate counties suing t,ose counties 2ecause Aproperties o3 similar alue +it,in t,e sc,ool district are

2eing ta=ed une?uall!< 2ecause o3 t,e di33erent met,ods o3 assessing propert! in t,e respectie counties4Bolding* T,e court ,eld t,at t,is allegation is an ultimate 3act4 T,e trial ;udge erred in ,olding Aconclusion o3 la+B4Certain code pleading states re?uire a complaint to contain a statement o3 ultimate facts 3or purposes o3 3actual su33icienc!4 T,e pleading s,ould

include t,ese t!pes o3 3actsDictum* I3 t,e complaint ,ad simpl! alleged t,at t,e plainti33s +ere 2eing une?uall! ta=ed in iolation o3 t,e due process and e?ual protectionclauses o3 t,e "tate and Federal Constitutions< it +ould ,ae 2een demurra2le4 Instead< t,e plainti33s ,ae said< in e33ect< in t,is sc,ool district

properties o3 e?ual alue are 2eing assessed and ta=ed di33erentl!4South Carolina=s +fact, %leading standard re6uires more s%ecificity than the federal +notice, %leading standard

)lso ,eig,tened speci3icit! under FRCP %2(&%g( claiming 3raud< mista/e< or special damages %see 2elo+(>ltimate facts 3acts t,at t,e eidence upon trial +ill proe< and not t,e eidence t,at +ill 2e re?uired to proe t,ose 3acts

%alleging 3actuall! speci3ic in3ormation as to eac, o3 t,e elements o3 t,e claim(Conclusions of la# descri2e legal status< condition< or legal o33ense

%assertions descri2ing elements o3 a claim +it, no real 3actual detail at all(E=4 A1e negligentl! in;ured me4B or AI +as ta=ed une?uall! in iolation o3 m! e?ual protection rig,ts4B

F!CP ; rea@do#n:

!ule ;0a1 ) pleading t,at states a claim 3or relie3 must contain*%6( a s,ort and plain statement o3 t,e grounds 3or t,e court.s ;urisdiction< unless t,e court alread! ,as

;urisdiction and t,e claims needs no ne+ ;urisdictional support &DPlaintiff must allege that the case is %ro%erly #ithin the court=s su)ject matter jurisdiction3 0Does not

re6uire allegations of %ersonal jurisdiction or venue1

%>( a short and %lain statement of the claim sho#ing that the %leader is entitled to relief &D%8( a demand 3or t,e relie3 soug,t< +,ic, ma! include relie3 in t,e alternatie or di33erent t!pes o3 relie3

Plaintiff tells the court #hat recovery is sought( i3e3( %rayer or ad damnum clause 0monetary recovery13

o dollar amount re6uired3 Plaintiff can +demand damages in amount to )e sho#n at trial3,

96uita)le relief 0injunction( s%ecific %erformance( declaratory judgment1

Can %lead for relief in the alternative e3g3( damages and s%ecific %erformance

!ule ;0a1041 a short and %lain statement of the claim sho#ing that the %leader is entitled to relief 0,at is t,e leel o3 detail re?uired under Rule 9%a(%>(

Dioguardi v3 Durning %>d Cir4 case< a33irmed 2! "upreme Court in Conle! 4 i2son(

Com%laint should not )e dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it a%%ears )eyond a dou)t that theA cannot %rove a set of facts in su%%ort of his claim #hich #ould entitle him to relief3

T,ere is enoug, to state a claim< een i3 pleading is not er! clear< as long as su2stantie la+ +ould proide t,ePlainti33 relie3 +,en statements are ta/en as true4 1ere< Dioguardi.s pleading +as ,orri2l! +ritten< 2ut ,e +ould 2eentitled to relie3 i3 all ,is claims +ere proen true4 F)CTU)L "UFFICIENColding* T,e FRCP does not re?uire a statement o3 3act t,at constitutes a CO)< instead< t,e complaint needs tocontain a statement o3 t,e claim s,o+ing t,e pleader is entitle to relie3 -Loo/ to t,e 3ace o3 t,e complaint

!ule ;0a1051 a demand for relief sought +,ic, ma! include relie3 in t,e alternatie or di33erent t!pes o3 relie3 %6( O3ten called a pra!er 3or relie3 %>( $a! see/ e?uita2le relie3< suc, as

a4 "peci3ic per3ormance 24 In;unction %declarator! ;udgment(

c4 $one! damagesDamages as pleaded in a lump sum


4/37

8egal Sufficiency determining +,et,er t,e Plainti33 ,as alleged a claim recogniQed 2! t,e la+De3endant ma/es a Rule 6>%2(%( motion 3or 3ailure to state a claim4

T,e court onl! loo/s to t,e 3ace o3 t,e complaint 0it does not consider eidence t,at ma! support t,e allegations1:64 assumes %3or t,e purposes o3 t,is motion( t,at t,e Plainti33.s 3actual allegations are true4>4 )s/s* I3 t,ese allegations are true< +ould t,e la+ proide a remed!84 I3 t,e 3ails to state a claim< t,e court +ill grant t,e Rule 6>%2(%( motion %usuall! +it, leae to amend to gie t,e

anot,er c,ance(Plainti33 ma! 3ail to state a claim< een i3 t,e 3actual allegations are 3airl! speci3ic< 2ecause t,e la+ simpl! does not allo+ an! relie3 2ased on t,ose 3acts %Garcia< >nd issue* cannot get relie3 3or statements protected under a2solute priilege on la2or 2oard ,earings(4

Factual Sufficiency Plainti33 must allege 3acts in complaint to some leel o3 speci3icit!4 Court +ill read 3actual allegations in t,elig,t most 3aora2le to t,e Plainti33 %isn.t a ,ard t,res,old to pass(4"tandards o3 )ppropriate "peci3icit!*

64 code pleading 3act pleading>4 FRCP notice pleading %put G on notice(84 T+i?2al %Twombly Iqbal ( Aplausi2ilit!B pleading

arcia v3 ilton otels %Fed4 Dist4 Ct4 Puerto Rico(

o arcia 3ired* Aiolentl! disc,arged4B 1ilton ma/es Rule 6>%2(%( motion 2c arcia did not allege t,at

slanderous statements +ere pu2lis,ed %element o3 de3amation(4 Court sa!s it is clear t,at Plainti33 statedAiolentl! disc,argedB to allege pu2lication< and it reasona2l! ma! 2e conceied t,at Plainti33< at trial< could

s,o+ eidence to proe pu2lication4 factual sufficiency

o 1ilton articulates slanderous statements again in ,earing at t,e La2or Dept4 )rgues t,at t,e! ,ae a2solute

priilege 3rom suit 2c conclusie de3ense to an action 2ased on utterance4 )2solute priilege +as gien t,emia statute4

Conditional Privilege* immuniQes a G 3rom suit only +,en priilege is properl! e=ercised in

per3ormance o3 a legal or moral dut! %e=* attorne!( &)solute Privilege* immuniQes t,e G 3rom suit no matter ,o+ +rong3ul t,e action mig,t 2e< or i3 done

+it, improper moties %proceeding aut,oriQed 2! la+( %1ilton ,otel said it under oat,( %e=* priest(

%)2solute priilege 3or statements made in legislatie or ;udicial proceedings4( arcia +ould not 2e

entitled to relie3 een i3 ,e could proe ,is allegations +ere true 2c not actiona2le according to t,e

la+4 legal sufficiency

o olding: ) motion to dismiss %FRCP 6>%2(%(( re?uires t,at a P 3ailed to state a claim up on +,ic, relie3 can 2e

granted< not t,at t,e 3ailed to state a Co)4 0,en construing a 6>%2(%(< all in3erences are dra+n in lig,t3aora2le to t,e 4 Dismissal s,ould not 2e ordered unless t,ere is no 2asis 3or relie34

Vaguness +ill not de3eat a complaint4 T,e complaint alleges t,at +as A3alsel! and slanderousl!B

accused o3 procuring prostitution4 )lt,oug, t,e complaint 3ailed to alledge pu2lication and speci3icinstances o3 +,en t,ese statements +ere made< t,e complaint s,ould not 2e dismissed on t,is 2asis4Instead< t,e s,old ,ae to proide more de3inite statement

ell &tlantic Cor%3 v3 T#om)ly

o Plainti33 +ere consumers +,o sued a group o3 regional p,one and Internet serice proiders< claiming t,at 2!

agreeing not to compete +it, eac, ot,er< t,e serice proiders /ept 3ees arti3iciall! ,ig,4 Plainti33s onl! allegeAconscious parallelismB %t,at de3endants +ere a+are o3 eac, ot,er.s actions and engaged in suc, actionst,emseles(< +,ic, is onl! actiona2le i3 it is a result o3 an agreement 2et+een t,e de3endants4 Court ,olds t,at

allegations do not eliminate t,e possi2ilit! o3 independent action4 Conscious parallelism OR an agreement

ot, are e?uall! possi2le4 Polic!* to protect corporations 3rom di33icult< e=pensie discoer! p,ase: no +a! to

de3end +o some idea o3 ,o+ and +,! t,e de3endants conspiredo olding: Plausi)ility Standard A must allege 3acts t,at< i3 true< +ould plausi2il! suggest a conspiratorial

agreement4 To alledge 3acts t,at are merel consistent +it, a conspirac! is not su33iciento Ta@ea#ay: Plausi2ilit! standard S must include enoug, 3acts in complaint to ma/e it plausi2le< not merel!

possi2le or conceia2le< t,at t,e! +ill 2e a2le to proe t,eir crimes4 no one reall! /no+s +,at t,is means &shcroft v3 I6)al

o $uslim citiQen in Pa/istan suing ) and Director o3 FI alleged t,at a3ter "ept 66 t,e! arrested and detained ,im under

restrictie conditions4 E=tended Twombly plausi2ilit!

o Issue* are conclusor! allegations t,at ,ig,-ran/ing goernment o33icers /ne+ o3 or condoned allegedl!

unconstitutional acts 2! su2ordinate o33icials su33icient to state a claim 3or unla+3ul discriminationo !educes T#om)ly to t#o +#or@ing %rinci%les:

23 ignoring conclusions of la# identify the %arts of com%laint that are merely legal conclusion


5/37

ARule 9 does not unloc/ t,e doors o3 discoer! 3or a Plainti33 armed +it, not,ing more t,an conclusions4B

43 a%%lying the %lausi)ility standard to the remaining factual allegations ta@en as trueconceia2le %capa2le o3 2eing grasped mentall!( 4 plausi2le %reasona2le or pro2a2le(

olding* I?2al 3ailed to plead su33icient 3acts to state a claim 3or unla+3ul discrimination4 I?2al needed to pleadsu33icient 3acts to s,o+ t,at t,e Gs implemented t,eir policies 3or t,e purpose o3 discrimination S ,is complaint didnot do t,is4

;udge must use common sense and e=perience to determine i3 t,e claim is plausi2le

Ta@ea#ay from Twonby & Iqbal *

64 T,ese cases altered de3erral court pleading standards< re?uiring .s to include 3ar more detailed 3acts in a complain i3t,e! +ant to surie a Rule 6>%2(%( motion to dismiss

>4 Plausi2ilit! standard

Failure to state a claim

I3 Plainti33 3ails to state a claim Court +ill grant t,e Rule 6>%2(%( motion< usuall! +it, Aleae to amend4B Courts are li2eral ingranting Aleae to amend4 as/* are t,e! speci3ic enoug, to gie de3endant notice o3 complaint so t,at De3endant can ade?uatel! de3end ,imsel3 84 as/* assuming t,e allegations are true< +ould t,e la+ proide a legal remed! S plausi2le enoug, to gie t,e relie3

"ther !ules for Pleadings:

!ule ;0d1 Pleading to 2e Concise & Direct: )lternatie statements: inconsistenc!%6( In eneral3 Eac, allegation must 2e simple< concise< and direct4 No tec,nical 3orm is re?uired4

%>( &lternative Statements of a Claim or Defense3 ) part! ma! set out t+o or more statements o3 a claim or de3ensealternatiel! or ,!pot,eticall!< eit,er in a single count or de3ense or in separates ones4 I3 a part! ma/es alternatiestatements< t,e pleading is su33icient i3 an! one o3 t,em is su33icient4 E=* i3 !ou /no+ one o3 t+o ppl did it< 2ut notdidn.t /no+ +,o %+ouldn.t 2e 3air i3 t,e! ,ad to c,oose one so list all(

%8( Inconsistent Claims or Defenses3 ) part! ma! state as man! separate claims or de3ense as it ,as< regardless o3consistenc!4 %e=* Can state a claim 3or 2atter! %intentional tort( or negligence< een t,oug, inconsistent< 2ecause Plainti33 doesnot !et /no+ +,ic, one is true and ultimatel! could not see/ relie3 3or 2ot,(

!ule 2B Form of Pleadings

0a1 Ca%tion ames of Parties3 Eer! pleading must ,ae a caption +it, t,e court.s name< a title< a 3ile num2er< and aRule M%a(%pleadings allo+ed( designation4 T,e title o3 t,e complaint must name all t,e parties: t,e title o3 ot,er pleadings< a3ter naming t,e 3irst part! on eac, side< ma! re3er generall! to ot,er parties4

Doc@et num)er can )e left )lan@ on com%laint )ecause the case #ill not )e assigned a doc@et num)er

until the com%laint is filed #ith the cler@3

0)1 Paragra%hs Se%arate Statements3 ) part! must state its claims or de3enses in num2ered paragrap,s< eac, limitedas 3ar as practica2le to a single set o3 circumstances4 ) later pleading ma! re3er 2! num2er to a paragrap, in an earlier pleading4 I3 doing so +ould promote clarit!< eac, claim 3ounded on a separate transaction or occurrence and eac,de3ense ot,er t,an a denialmust 2e stated in a separate count or de3ense4

!ule limits each %aragra%h to +a single set of circumstances, not a single fact( and calls for a

commonsense )rea@do#n of allegations +as far as %ractica)le3,&llegations in a %aragra%h should

form a logical grou%ing( relate to each other3 !educing s%ecificity to an atomic level #ould ma@e the

com%laint unduly tedious3 0lannon1

0c1 &do%tion )y !eference 9hi)its3 ) statement in a pleading ma! 2e adopted 2! re3erence else+,ere in t,e same pleading or in an! ot,er pleading or motion4 ) cop! o3 a +ritten instrument t,at is an e=,i2it to a pleading is part o3 t,e pleading 3or all purposes4

Parties should eercise care in incor%orating documents3 This creates an admission of the

authenticity of the document( if not their accuracy( #hich may #ea@en an argument3

!ule E 0Pleading S%ecial /atters1

0)1 Fraud or /ista@e Conditions of /ind3 In alleging 3raud or mista/e< a part! must state #ith %articularity t,e circumstancesconstituting 3raud or mista/e4 $alice< intent< /no+ledge< and ot,er states o3 mind ma! 2e alleged generall!

1eig,tened Pleading Re?uirements claimant must allege in more detail t,an is re?uired under Rule 9%a(%>(4

e4g4< +,at ,appened< +,at did t,e! sa!< +as it pu2lis,ed0,! ,eig,tened re?uirement eas! to ma/e a 3raud claim against someone t,at +ill damage t,eir reputation< een i3 suit is 3riolous

1ig,er "td also applies to G in ,is ans+er pleading one o3 t,ese as an a33irmatie de3ense

0g1 S%ecial Damages3 I3 an item o3 special damage is claimed< it must 2e s%ecifically stated4e3g3 conse6uential damages( other damages Defendant might not contem%late 0not a%%arent to Defendant1

Include t,e amount and possi2l! ,o+ !ou calculated t,at amounties +arning to G o3 an! une=pectedunusual damages

I3 it doesn.t sa! it ,as to 2e stated +it, Aparticularit!B< t,e de3ault is FRCP 9%a(%>(4 9%a(%>(5 generall!


6/37

8eatherman v3 Tarrant County

It is inappropriate 3or t,e court to e=pand A,eig,tened speci3icit! to claims ot,er t,an t,ose listed in Rule 74olding: Fed cts ma! not ,eig,ten t,e re?uirements o3 t,e pleadings 2e!ond +,at is speci3ied in t,e FRCP 74

Filing and Serving a Com%laint

Ato 3ileB to su2mit to t,e court

Ato sereB to su2mitgiesend to ot,er partiesAto sere processB to su2mitgiesend summons and complaint

!ule Summons %,o+ to sere and 3ile t,e original complaint ,ig,er standard to gie notice to G< ma/e sure ,e /no+s( %c( Service %not in sylla)us(

%6( "ummons must 2e sered +it, a cop! o3 t,e complaint4 Re?uires serice on De3endant< not attorne!%>( serice cannot 2e done 2! t,e part! %can 2e done 2! an! person +,o is a least 69 !ears old and not a part!(%8( not 2! regular mail< unless state la+ allo+s it certi3ied mail4

!ule G Serving . Filing Pleadings . other Pa%ers%goerns su2se?uent 3ilings no+ eer!one is a+are o3 +,at is going on(

re?uires serice o3 process on attorne! %to /eep parties apart(allo+s serice 2! regular mail possi2ilit! o3 electronic serice + consentincludes A+it, leae to amendB complaints %amended(G0d1021: any %a%er after com%laint is re6uired to )e served together #ith a certificate of service

%a( +,en re?uired %2( ,o+ made %c( 3iling

!es%onding to Com%laints

Pre-&ns#er /otionso# and #hen should a Defendant res%ond via motion?

/otion a document in +,ic, a part! re?uests t,at t,e court ma/e a certain order %court can grant or deny a motion("rder a document em2od!ing a court.s decision

Filing a %re-ans#er motion under !ule 240)1 is an alternative to ans#ering the com%laint3 & Defendant #ho ma@e a motion to

dismiss under 240)1 need not ans#er the com%laint until after the motion is decided3Policy: to shortcut the litigation %rocess

T+o options under 6>%2(*

23 Raise PRE-)N"0ER motions

G ,as alid de3ense to court proceeding +it, t,e case %& sae (

I3 !ou preail on t,e motion< !oull neer ,ae to ans+er

43 Raise de3enses in ans+er

!>89 240h1 W&IH&89 D9F9S9S:$ust 2e raised in pre-ans+er motion or %i3 no pre-ans+er motion( in t,e ans+er4 I3 3ail to raise in initial responsede3ense is +aied 3oreer

!>89 240g1041 S9C"D P!9-&SW9! /"TI"De3endant c,oosing to ma/e a pre-ans+er motion ma! not later ma/e a second one asserting ot,er pre-ans+er motions4 can put in ans+er or

anot,er motion a3ter pleading or at trial %Rule 6>%,(%>(( %unless it is a +aia2le de3ense( $a/ing a 6>%2( de3ense once 2ars it 3rom ,aing anot,er

!>89 240h1 J W&IH9! "F 240)1 D9F9S9S

Four o3 t,e 6>%2( de3enses +ill 2e +aied i3 not raised 2! t,e G in t,e FIR"T response to a complaint %+,et,er 2! motion or

ans+er(64 Personal ;urisdiction

>4 Venue84 Insu33icient process4 Insu33icient serice o3 process

ou can al+a!s raise "$# de3ense


7/37


8/37

041 DenialsL!es%onding to the Su)stance3 ) denial must 3airl! respond to t,e su2stance o3 t,e allegation4Counsel should resist tem%tation to %lead contrary facts3 &rgumentative denial could )e an admission 0code states13

051 eneral and S%ecific Denials3 ) part! t,at intends in good 3ait, to den! all t,e allegations o3 a pleading L including t,e ;urisdictional grounds L ma! do so 2! general denial4 ) part! t,at does not intend to den! all t,e allegations must eit,erspeci3icall! den! designated allegations or generall! den! all e=cept t,ose speci3icall! admitted %?uali3ied generaldenial(4

01 Denying Part of an &llegation3 ) part! t,at intends in good 3ait, to den! onl! part o3 an allegation must admit t,e partt,at is true and den! t,e rest4

0G1 8ac@ing @no#ledge or information3 ) part! t,at lac/s /no+ledge or in3ormation su33icient to 3orm a 2elie3 a2out t,etrut, o3 an allegation must so state< and t,e statement ,as t,e e33ect o3 a denial4

0K1 9ffect of Failing to Deny3 )n allegationot,er t,an one relating to t,e amount o3 damagesis admitted i3 a responsie pleading is re?uired and t,e allegation is not denied4 I3 a responsie pleading is not re?uired< an allegation is considereddenied or aoided4

&llegations not denied are deemed admitted 0ece%t allegations regarding the amount of damage13

0c1 &ffirmative Defenses3

021 In eneral3 In responding to a pleading< a part! must a33irmatiel! state an! aoidance or a33irmatie de3ense%listed de3enses(

0d1 Pleading to e Concise and Direct &lternative Statements Inconsistency

0,at ,appens i3 a de3endant does not respondFailure to !es%ond Default and Default $udgments

De3ault a ministerial notion on t,e court.s doc/et s,eet t,at t,e De3endant ,as 3ailed to plead or ot,er+ise respond in time

De3endant 3ails to respond in an! +a! +it,in t,e appropriate period Rule 6>%a(%6(%)(%i( 5 >6 da!s

Not automatic S must as/ t,e cler/ to enter t,e de3ault on t,e doc/et s,eet Rule %2(%6(

!ule GG

0a1 9ntering a Default3 0,en a part! against +,om a ;udgment 3or a33irmatie relie3 is soug,t ,as 3ailed to plead or ot,er+ise de3end< and 3ailure is s,o+n 2! a33idait or ot,er+ise< t,e cler/ must enter t,e part!.s de3ault4

i4 &ttorney should %re%are an affidavit sho#ing that the com%laint 0#ith amount due1 #as served and not motion or ans#er #received from Defendant3

ii4 Cler@ must enter %arty=s default3iii4 o re6uirement to serve affidavit on Defendant

0)1 9ntering a Default $udgment3

021 y the Cler@3 I3 t,e plainti33.s claim is 3or a sum certain or a sum t,at can 2e made certain 2! computation< t,e cler/ L on t,e plainti33.s re?uest< +it, an a33idait s,o+ing t,e amount due L must enter ;udgment 3or t,at amount and costs against a de3endant +,as 2een de3aulted 3or not appearing and +,o is neit,er a minor nor an incompetent person4

041 y the Court3 In all ot,er cases< t,e part! must appl! to t,e court 3or de3ault ;udgmentKi4 When the amount is not s%ecified must go to the court

64 Court must eercise some judgment 0no sum certain1 and might need some evidence to decide ho# much thdamages #ill )e

ii4 or if minor or incom%etent %erson 0only if re%resent )y a guardian1iii4 or #hen the Defendant has a%%eared**** even if sum certain

64 Defendant can sho# ecusa)le neglect>4 asicallyMIf I re6uest a default for N not sho#ing u%( )ut then he a%%ears )efore the default judgment

hearingMthen #e have to notify N at least < days ) hearing

0c1 Setting &side a Default or a Default $udgment3 T,e court ma! set aside an entr! o3 de3ault 3or good cause< and it ma! set aside a de3a ;udgment under Rule H%2(4 %rounds 3or relie3 3rom a 3inal ;udgment(

i4 o# do you get a default judgment removed?64 can have default removed for good cause 0e: lay%erson does not @no# #hat is going on1>4 ecusa)le neglect !ule KB0)1

a4 The defaulting Defendant must convince the court that she #as not guilty of cul%a)le conduct( that shhas a meritorious defense( and that reo%ening the case #ould not %rejudice the Plaintiff

24 not attorney %re%aredness***

#$amle X> on uiQ 6Een t,oug, t,ere is a sum certain< t,e De3endant appeared< and t,us Plainti33 ,as to appl! to t,e court to get a de3ault ;udgment entered

!ule G

0c1 Demand for $udgment !elief to )e ranted3 ) de3ault ;udgment must not di33er in /ind 3rom< or e=ceed in amount< +,at is demandedt,e pleadings4Eer! ot,er 3inal ;udgment s,ould grant t,e relie3 to +,ic, eac, part! is entitled< een i3 t,e part! ,as not demanded t,at relie3 in its

pleadings4!ule KB0)1

0)1 rounds for !elief From a Final $udgment( "rder( or Proceeding

"ee rule 2oo/4


9/37

De3ault #udgment a 3inal order as concluding t,e litigation on a claim or entire action in 3aor o3 one part! or t,e ot,er64 y the cler@: Rule %2(%6(

o Re?uirements*

"um certain or sum t,at can 2e calculated

Y must ma/e re?uest to cler/

Y must produce a33idait s,o+ing t,e amount due

G must not ,ae de3aulted 3or not appearing

G cannot 2e a minor or incompetent person

o I3 t,ese re?uirements are met< t,en t,e cler/ $U"T enter de3ault ;udgment>4 y the Court: Rule %2(%>(

Y must appl! to t,e courts

Y ,as no a2solute rig,t to de3ault ;udgment

De3ault ;udgment ma! 2e entered against a minor or incompetent person ONL IF represented 2! a guardian<

conserator< or ot,er 3iduciar! +,o ,as appeared I3 it.s a part! +,o ,as appeared 2e3ore< !ou must sere t,em +it, notice o3 t,e application 3or de3ault ;udgement at

least M da!s 2e3ore t,e ,earing"etting aside a de3ault ;udgment %Rule H%2((

Aood causeB

o D# +as set aside 2ecause t,e de3aulting part! ,as 2een distraug,t oer ,us2and.s deat,< ,ad 2een under t,e

care o3 a ps!c,iatrist< +as not 3amiliar +it, legal matters< and did not tr! to manipulate t,e proceedings

0,en ma! parties c,ange t,eir pleadings&mendments to Pleadings

!ule 2G0a1 &mendments )efore trial

!ule 2G0a1021 )mending as a $atter o3 Course +it,out ,aing to ma/e a motion and ,ae it granted 2! t,e ;udge) part! ma! amend its pleading once as a matter o3 course +it,in*

%a( >6 da!s a3ter sering it< ora3 for ans#ers Defendant has 42 days after serving the ans#er to amend it #ithout leave of court3 !ule 2G0a1021

0&1

%2( i3 t,e pleading is one to +,ic, a responsie pleading is re?uired 0i3e3( a com%laint or an ans#er #7 counterclaims1< >6da!s a3ter serice o3 a responsie pleading or >6 da!s a3ter serice o3 a motion under Rule 6>%2( 0defenses1< %e(0motion for a more definite statement1< or %3( 0motion to stri@e1< +,ic,eer is earlier4 Rule 6%a(%6(%(

a3 If a %leading does re6uire a res%onsive %leading 0com%laint or an ans#er #7 counterclaims1(

i4 the %arty may amend #ithin 42 days after the ans#er or %re-ans#er motion is served on them

!ule 2G0a1041)mendments +it, Leae o3 CourtIn all ot,er cases< a part! ma! amend its pleading onl! +it, t,e opposing part!.s +ritten consent or t,e court.s leae4 T,ecourt s,ould 3reel! gie leae +,en ;ustice so re?uires4

ou must eit,er*

o O2tain t,e courts permission: or

o O2tain t,e consent o3 t,e aderse part!

Pro3essional courtes! sa!s !ou s,ould allo+ to amend unless it.s a detriment to !our

clients case Li2eral standard A;ustice so re?uiresB

o Depends on ,o+ 3ar into litigation t,e case is S 3airness

o Depends on t,e ;udge

!ule 2G0a1051 Time to !es%ond

Unless t,e court orders ot,er+ise< an! re?uired response to an amended pleading must 2e made +it,in t,e time remaining torespond to t,e original pleading or +it,in 6 da!s a3ter serice o3 t,e amended pleading< +,ic,eer is later4

#$amle X uiQ 6Plainti33 3iles a complaint in 3ederal court on $arc, 6< >H6< and ,as process properl! sered t,e same da!4 On$arc, < >H6< s,e seres and 3iles an amended complaint< adding t,ree ne+ claims4 ! +,ic, date must De3endantrespond to t,e amended complaintTime to remaining to respond to original pleading until $arc, >>< >H6 ! t,is date46 da!s a3ter serice o3 amended pleading $arc, 67< >H6

!ule 2G0)1 &mendments during and after trial

)mendments t,at are*%6( ased on an O2;ection at Trial4

a4 Pleadings are t,e 2lueprint 3or t,e litigation4 "ometimes eidence +ill 2e introduced 3or issues not in t,e pleadings4


10/37

i4 O2;ection o3 Variants made +,en eidence 3or ne+ issues aries 3rom +,at is in t,e pleadings 24 Court can admit or re;ect eidence i3 part! can s,o+ detriment

i4 ut not i3 parties ,ae acted as i3 issue +as t,ere all along%>( For Issues Tried 2! Consent4

a4 Implied consent is esta2lis,ed i3 t,ere is no o2;ection to ne+ issues raised in trial t,at +as not raised in pleadings4 24 Court +ill act as t,oug, t,e issue +as in t,e pleading all along

!ule 2G0c1021 - !elation ac@ of &mendments & Way to eat the Statute of 8imitations

Proides t,at an amendment to a pleading Arelates 2ac/ to t,e date o3 t,e original pleadingB i3 it arises 3rom t,e conduct<

transaction< or occurrence set 3ort, in t,e original pleading4o T,is means t,at t,e claim asserted in t,e amended pleading +ill 2e treated as t,roug, it ,ad 2een asserted in t,e

original pleading4o Rule proides t,at once !ou ,ae sued t,e De3endant 3or a certain transaction or occurrence< an! amendment to

add ne+ claims 2ased on t,e same conduct( transaction( or occurrence of the original action +ill 2e treated< 3orstatute o3 limitations purposes< as t,oug, it ,ad 2een in t,e original complaint

i4 T,e Arelation 2ac/B proision addresses t,e common situation in +,ic, a part! adds a claim 2! amendmenta3ter t,e limitations period 3or t,at claim ,as passed4

a4 statute o3 limitations re?uirement t,at sets a time 3or +,en suit can 2e 3iledi4 T,e purpose o3 t,e limitations period is to proide notice to t,e De3endant +it,in a prescri2ed

period o3 time4 T,e Arelation 2ac/B proision does not destro! t,is notice 2c De3endant isalread! placed on notice t,at s,e.d 2een sued 3or t,e oerall eent4

ii4 T,us< t,e statute o3 limitations +ill not 2ar t,e claim< een t,oug,< it +as asserted in anamended pleading 3iled a3ter t,e limitations period ,as run4

2G0d1 - Su%%lemental Pleadings

T,e court ma!< on ;ust terms< permit a part! to sere a supplemental pleading setting out an! transaction< occurrence< or eent t,at,appened a3ter t,e date o3 t,e pleading4

a( E=* oral argumentsK+,en ;udge as/ed us a ?uestion and +e didn.t /no+< +e as/ed to ans+er in a supplemental pleading %didn.t state t,e claim or de3ense in original pleading(

0,at proisions assure t,at parties +ill 2e trut,3ul in t,eir allegations!ule 22 Provisions to 9nsure Truthfulness in &llegations

In reaction to perceied need to cur2 3riolous litigation Rule 66 Certi3ications made m! attorne!sRule 66 goerns signatures o3 pleadings< motions< and ot,er court documents4!ule 22%a( )n attorne!.s signature on a complaint certi3ies to t,e court t,at t,e attorne! 2eliees< a3ter reasona2le in?uir!< t,at t,e3actual allegations in t,e complaint ,ae eidentiar! support or %3or speci3icall! identi3ied allegations( +ill li/el! ,ae eidentiar!support a3ter a reasona2le opportunit! 3or 3urt,er inestigation or discoer!4 %Rule 66%2(%8((4

!ule 220)1 ""I D>TO su2;ectie %to t,e 2est o3 t,e person.s /no+ledge< in3ormation< and 2elie3( &D o2;ectie%reasona2le in?uir!( standard Certi3!ing 5 promising

+after an in6uiry reasona)le under the circumstances,

a4 0a1not an im%ro%er %ur%ose>4 E=ample* 0,at i3 client comes to !ou t,e da! 2e3ore statute o3 limitations runs allegations

+ould onl! 2e 2ased on an interie+ +it, !our client "till< t,is is reasona2le under t,ecircumstances 2c t,e client ;ust came to !ou

84 I3 t,ere is time to do more< a reasona2le inestigation s,ould inole ta/ing ot,er steps4 )la+!er must go 2e!ond +,at ,er client tells ,er

4 I3 all eidence supports t,e opponent< t,e la+!er is not iolating Rule 66 2! proceeding4a4 T,e la+!er.s eidence is t,e client.s +ord Client could testi3! in court

i4 Client.s stor! must 2e 3aciall! and reasona2l! credi2le so t,at t,e la+!er ,as

reason to 2eliee t,at t,is is eidentiar! support4 24 La+!er s,ould council client and tell ,im t,at ,e +ill not preail

021 +nonfrivolous argument, or #arranted )y eisting la#

4 t,e argument ,as 2een re-a33irmed man! times or +as ;ust decided4 A"ometimes t,ere are reasons to sue een +,en one cannot +in4 ad court decisions must 2e

c,allenged i3 t,e! are to 2e oerruled< 2ut t,e earl! c,allenges are certainl! ,opeless4B %East+a!Construction Corp4 4 Cit! o3 Ne+ or/(

M4 part! can.t 2e sanctioned 3or iolating 66%2(%>(%>( +evidentiary su%%ort, or li@ely have evidentiary su%%ort

64 promises a2out t,e 3acts reasona2le inestigation reasona2le 2elie3

>4 $ust ,ae a 3actual 2asis 2e!ond mere opinion or speculation to support t,e pleaded 3acts< as +ellas a colora2le argument 3or t,e legal positions asserted in t,e complaint


11/37

84 Certaint! or admissi2le eidence is not re?uired

%8( Denials )ased on evidence or investigation reasona)le )elief 64 Denials are +arranted on eidence or>4 2eliee 3ind lac/ o3 eidence

220c1 Sanctions

%6( a ct ma! impose sanctions 2ut doesn.t necessaril! ,ae to%>( "a3e 1ar2or Proisiona motion 3or sanctions must 2e made separatel! 3rom an! ot,er motion and must descri2e t,e

speci3ic conduct t,at allegedl! iolates Rule 66%2(a4 $ust 2e sered under Rule < 2ut don.t ,ae to 3ile it 2c it gies an opportunit! to 3i= pleading so

don.t ,ae to 2ot,er ;udge a2out it4 I3 not 3i=ed< t,en I.m 3iling it4 24 ies !ou a c,ance to amend or remoe claim4c4 1ae a rig,t not to 2e sanctioned +o ,aing 2ene3it o3 >6 da!s sa3e ,ar2or4d4 Protects part! +,o ma! ,ae made a mista/e< a c,ance to amend4e4 Zeeps a lot o3 motions 3rom going to t,e court4

%8( Ct ma! order attorne!< or la+ 3irm or part! to s,o+ cause +,! conduct descri2ed in order ,as not iolated 66%2(

%( Nature o3 a "anction loo/ in rule 2oo/

%( Limitations on "anctions ct must not impose monetar! sanction against

34 ) represented part! 3or iolating 66%2(%>( or i4 I3 unrepresented %not included(

g4 O+n its o+n< unless it issued t,e s,o+-cause order under rule 66%c(%8(< need ct order

i4 1as to 2e 2e3ore oluntar! dismissal or settlement o3 claims %( Order imposing sanction must descri2e sanctioned conduct

%ector v &roved 'ederal avings )an* 6( Rule 66 re?uired t,at notices 2e sered +in >6 da!s % safe harbor proision(>( In order to assert t,e sa3e ,ar2or proision< Rector needed to 3ile a motion asserting t,e proision as a

de3ense< 1e did not do t,is< so t,e possi2ilit! o3 raising t,e de3ense is +aied48( >6 da! proision is +aia2le

a4 Rector did not raise issue in time( Protects part! to 3i= mista/e( Protects 2ic/ering 3rom going to ct t,e! don.t +ant to ,ear rule 66 motions

220d1 -- T,is rule doesn.t appl! to disclosures and discoer! re?uests< responses< o2;ections< and motions under rules > -8M

1o+ can parties learn a2out eac, ot,er.s cases 2e3ore trial DISC"H9!O

"vervie#:

File complaint "u2mit >%3( report 6%2( con3erence %optional( 6%2( order 3inal pre-trial con3erence trialT#o meanings of discovery:

23 P,ase o3 litigation43 Disclosure S giing eac, ot,er in3ormation

Discoer! is t,e process 2! +,ic, parties re?uest in3ormation 3rom eac, ot,er< and i3 necessar!< enlist t,e court.s po+er to compeleac, ot,er to respond4Purposes*

64 preseration o3 eidence t,at mig,t ot,er+ise 2e lost 2e3ore trial>4 proide mec,anisms 3or narro+ing t,e issues in dispute 2et+een t,e parties84 permit parties to ac?uire greater in3ormation a2out t,eir o+n and t,e ot,er.s side

a4 strongest eidence o3 +rongdoing +ill 2e in t,e possession o3 t,e alleged +rongdoer Plainti33 +ould ot,er+ise

not ,ae t,e necessar! proo3 -T,e discoer! rules allo+ parties to learn< +ell in adance o3 trial< +,at eidence t,e ot,er side ,as in support o3 its claims or Gs-T,e discoer! rules also permit parties to ac?uire in3ormation 3or t,e purpose o3 strengt,ening t,eir o+n cases4 T,e strongesteidence o3 +rongdoing +ill 2e in t,e possession o3 t,e alleged +rongdoer S +it,out access to t,is in3ormation< t,e plainti33 +ouldnot ,ae t,e necessar! proo3 to ,ae a success3ul case4

FRCP >%3( S Earl! con3erence

• )s soon as possi2le S 2ut at least >6 da!s 2e3ore a sc,eduling con3erence is to 2e ,eld or sc,eduling order is due under Rule

6%2(

• Consider claims and de3enses S start t,in/ing a2out settlement to sae

• )rrange 3or automatic disclosure under FRCP >%a(

• Deelop proposed plan %used 2! ;udges in creating sc,eduling order(


12/37

• No 3ormal discoer! can commence until a3ter t,is con3erence ,as occurred

• "ummar! re?uires parties to con3er a2out disclosure and t,e su2se?uent course o3 discoer!

Disclosures: T,e act or process o3 ma/ing /no+n somet,ing t,at +as preiousl! un/no+n: a reelation o3 3acts!ule 4K Duty to Disclose eneral Provisions overning Discovery

Rule >%a(%6( !e6uired Initial Disclosures %)utomatic Disclosure(

i4 Re?uires eac, part! to disclose certain in3ormation +it,out an! re?uest 2! anot,er part!*i4 name< address< and telep,one num2er o3 eac, indiidual +it, discoera2le in3ormation

ii4 a cop! o3 all documents< electronicall! stored in3ormation< and tangi2le t,ings in

possession< custod!< or controliii4 computation o3 eac, categor! o3 damages and documents used to compute damagesi4 insurance lia2ilit! insurance produced 2! t,e de3ending part! t,at +ill satis3!

;udgment %purpose to encourage settlement(ii3 Limited to discoera2le in3ormation and +itnesses t,e part! may use to su%%ort its claims or defenses %NOT

in3ormation t,e part! plans to use against t,e ot,er part!< een i3 +it,in t,e scope o3 discoer! under Rule >%2(%6(( a/a* t,e Agood stu33B

23 Parties can onl! o2tain damaging in3ormation t,roug, interrogatories< document re?uests< anddepositions4 No+ !ou s,ould 3ind out +,at in3ormation t,e parties ,ae against !ou

iii3 4K0a10210C1 disclosure at or +in 2 days o3 >%3( and categories o3 in3o t,at must 2e disclosed4iv3 4K0a1021091 a part! must ma/e its initial disclosures 2ased on t,e in3o t,en reasona2l! aaila2le to it< not e=cused

3rom ma/ing disclosure 2ecause it ,as not 3ull! inestigated t,e case4v3 4K0a101 disclosures must 2e in +riting< signed< & sered

23 D" "T FI89

#$amle+ 0,at i3 De3endant alleges contri2utor! negligence< 2ut does not proide an! eidence 2e3ore disclosure dateCan 2e a iolation o3 Rule 66< 2ut i3 alleged Aupon in3ormation and 2elie3


13/37

0,at /ind o3 in3ormation are parties entitled toThe Sco%e of Discovery !ule 4K0)1-0c1

!ule 4K0)1021 Aan! nonpriileged matter t,at is releant to an! part!.s claim or de3ense and proportional to t,e needs o3 t,e caseBWhat does this mean eactly?

23 !elevant

a3 ased on t,e complain and ans+er %pleasings()3 FuQQ! "tandard as to +,at reelant means -- Federal Rule o3 Eidence H6 AReleant eidenceB means eidence

tending to ma/e t,e e=istence o3 an! material 3act more pro2a2le or less pro2a2le t,an it +ould 2e +it,out t,eeidence4

43 Pro%ortionala3 Producing part! pa!s t,e costs o3 production >%2(%>()3 #U"T )DDED 2! rule dra3tersc3 t,e scope o3 discoer! is 2roader t,an admissi2ilit! need not )e admissi)le at trial

i3 E=* ,earsa!53 on%rivileged

a3 Protected in3ormation 2ased on a de3ined relations,ip %rivilege #ill %revail even if information #ithheld iscrucial 0unli@e #or@ %roduct1

i3 attorne!-client e33ectie representation re?uires 3ull and 3ran/ communication 2et+een la+!er and client23 Can respond* AT,e de3endant o2;ects to Interrogator! XM on t,e ground t,at t,e re?uested

in3ormation is protected 2! t,e attorne!-client priilege4B43 Claiming Privilege or Protecting Trial-Pre%aration /aterials

a3 Create a priledge log t,at e=pressl! states and descri2es in su33icient detail t,edocuments< communicatins< or t,ings not produced so as to ena2le t,e ot,er parties toassess t,e claims

)3 !ule 4K0)10G10&1 re?uires a part! to claim t,e priilege e=pressl! and to descri2e insu33icient detail t,e documents< communications< or t,ings not produced so as to ena2leot,er parties to assess t,e claim

c3 !ule 4K0)10G101 inadertent disclosure o3 priileged in3ormation does not +aie t,e priilege proided t,e ,older o3 t,e priilege too/ reasona2le steps to preent disclosureand also too/ reasona2le steps to recti3! t,e error

ii3 Ot,er priileges priest-penitent doctor-patient< ps!c,ot,erapist-patient< ,us2and-+i3e)3 What is %rotected? the communication and "T the underlying facts

i3 not protected ;ust 2ecause t,e 3acts +ere told to an attorne!ii3 E=* ,hat did you tell your lawyer about how much gas was in the tan* at the time of the accident 4 ow

much gas was in the tan* at the time of the accidentc3 Wor@ Product Protection

i3 !ule 4K0)1051 Protection o3 material prepared Ain antici%ation of litigation,23 does not re?uire t,at litigation actuall! commenced

a3 Test t,e prospect o3 litigation is t,e driing 3orce 2e,ind t,e preparation o3 t,edocuments

i3 Wor@ Product Protection is not an a)solute %rotection( information may

still )e discovera)le if:

23 discovera)le under !ule 4K0)1021 &D

43 re6uesting %arty sho#s that it has su)stantial need and an undue

hardshi% involving in o)taining the same information else#here

43 >%2(%8(%( I3 +or/ product is discoera2le< Court must protect against disclosure o3 o%inion#or@ %roduct %t,oug,t process in preparing a case< suc, as legal t,eories or litigation strateg!(

a3 unless +or/ product is a 3actual issue in t,e case %e=* issues inoling good 3ait,()3 Court +ill order a redacted version %2lac/en out counsel.s opinionsnotesetc(

53 Courts regularl! den! protection to documents %re%ared in the ordinary course of )usinessa3 Not prepared in anticipation o3 litigation standard procedure)3 E=* accident reports and insurance claim assessments

3 Future litigationa3 "ome courts protection continues onl! i3 t,e su2se?uent litigation is related to t,e case

3or +,ic, t,e material +as originall! prepared)3 "ome courts parties must 2e t,e same

G3 1ic/man %common la+( applies to intangi2le in3ormation %opinions< etc( >%2(%8( onl! appliesto Adocuments and tangi2le t,ings4B

a. ic*man v. Taylor (first recognition of wor* roduct roduction"i3 Plainti33 attempted Ato secure t,e production o3 +ritten statements and mental

impressions contained in t,e 3iles and t,e mind o3 t,e attorne! +it,out an!s,o+ing o3 necessit! or an! indication or claim t,at denial +ould undul!


14/37

pre;udice t,e preparation o3 t,e case or cause ,ards,ip or in;ustice4B %statementso3 +itnesses(

ii3 Plainti33 admitted t,at ,e +anted t,e statements onl! to ,elp prepare ,imsel3423 "ee/s +ritten and oral statements o3 +itnesses +,ose identit! is +ell-

/no+n and aaila2leiii3 Court ,olds In3ormation is priileged4

23 Counsel does not ,ae to reconstruct an interie+4

Protective "rders !ule 4K0c1) part! +,o receies a discoer! re?uest ma! see/ a Aprotectie orderB 3orm t,e court limiting discoer!< een o3 in3ormation clearl!+it,in t,e standard o3 Rule >%2(%6( %a2oe(< to protect a part! or person 3rom anno!ance< em2arrassment< oppression< or undue 2urden or e=pense4

-E=* i3 t,e! as/ a +omen ,o+ man! ppl s,e pic/s up at a 2ar< or ,o+ man! men s,e ,as slept +it,K64 $otion must include certi3ication t,at moant ,as in good 3ait, con3erred or attempted to con3er +it, ot,er a33ected parties in

an e33ort to resole t,e dispute +it,out court action4 )s/ t,e part! to +it,dra+ t,e re?uest

/ain discovery devices:

• Interrogatories %FRCP 88(

• Re?uest 3or Production o3 Documents %FRCP 8(

• Oral Depositions %FRCP 8H %a(-%c((

Interrogatories -- !ule 55

64 uestions propounded 2! one part! to anot,er %rule doesn.t coer nonparties(< see/ing in3ormation releant to t,e issues indispute4>4 Pros* most 3re?uentl! used< ine=pensie< e33ectie in proiding 2asic 2ac/ground in3ormation

84 Cons* %6( interrogatories are 3roQen 5 no 3ollo+ up ?uestions %>( opponent +ill construe ?uestions di33erentl!4 88%2(%>( part! must sere ans+er +it,in 8H da!s a3ter 2eing sered + interrogatories4 )re ans+ered under oath %Rule 88%2(%8(( S su2;ect to per;ur!4 88%d( Option to produce 2usiness records %i3 a 2usiness is on t,e receiing end< allo+s responding part! to gie access to

3iles2usiness records rat,er t,an +riting a response(a4 speci3!ing t,e records t,at must 2e reie+ed in su33icient detail to ena2le t,e interrogating part! to locate and

identi3! t,em as readil! as t,e responding part! could: )ND 24 giing t,e interrogating part! reasona2le opportunit! to e=amine and audit records and to ma/e copies<

compilations< a2stracts and summariesc4 2urden ,as to 2e t,e same 3or 2ot, sides

d4 Don.t usuall! do t,is 2ecause t,e! mig,t 3ind docs t,at 6( don.t relate 2ut +ant to /eep priate or >( 3ind somet,ing!ou don.t +ant t,em to or 8( !ou.re pro2a2l! going to ,ae to go t,roug, it an!+a!sM4 ) part! ans+ering interrogatories ,as no duty to go out and conduct a detailed investigation o3 3acts 2e!ond ,er control in

order to respond4 It is su33icient to respond +it, in3ormation !ou /no+ or t,at is +it,in !our control494 Een i3 all t,e s are o2;ectiona2le< !ou still ,ae to ans+er + o2;ections stated +it, speci3icit!

a4 )ttorne!s sign t,e o2;ections 2ecause t,e!.re coming 3rom t,e la+ and it is t,eir ;o2 to /no+ +,en to o2;ect74 "C ,as standard Interrogatories pre approed4 sounds similar to automatic disclosure

!e6uests for Production of Documents -- !ule 5

23 )ut,oriQes a part! to re?uire an opponent to produce designated documents or t,ings in its %ossession( custody( or control 3or inspection and cop!ing4

a3 Or a person.s rig,t to t,ose documents %transcripts and medical records(43 )ut,oriQes inspection o3 tangi2le t,ings %e=* inspection o3 car or urine sample(53 Parties resist document re?uests 2! construing t,em narro+l! and 2! li2erall! ino/ing t,e priiledges and ot,er o2;ections

a3 Note* i3 o2;ections are asserted +it,out 2asis< t,e responding part! ma! 2e sanctioned3 Dra3ted 2roadl! to ensure t,at opposing part! doesn.t aoid discoer! 2! narro+l! construingAdocs meanKBG3 Parties can o33er to open t,eir records as t,e! are /ept in t,e ordinar! course o3 2usiness Rule 8%2(%>(%E(%i(

a3 Cause greater 2urden on re?uesting part!K3 In sum< items re?uested ma! 2e

a3 Documents< electronicall! stored in3o< or tangi2le t,ings)3 Permission to enter designated landpropert!


15/37

;3 Time to respond* part! t,at ,as to respond to re?uest must do so in +riting +it,in 8H da!s a3ter 2eing sered4 8%2(%>(%)(

Discovery of 9lectronic Documents !ule 50)1041091

64 Leads to production o3 massie amounts o3 material>4 T,e process o3 reie+ing and producing records can 2e enormousl! complicated and e=pensie84 $etadata in3ormation t,at is associated +it, electronic 3iles %cant see in a PDF< 2ut out t,e ot,er ma! re?uire E"I 3orm(4 Once litigation starts< t,e dut! to presere /ic/s in

a4 "anctions against spoliation 24 Record retention programs

/ental and Physical 9ams !ule 5G23 eed court order intrusie and inasie

a3 +,ic, +ill onl! 2e granted 3or good cause %Rule 8%a(%>(%)(()3 UT parties can arrange toget,er +it,out a court order

43 Normall! court stipulates in >%3( con3erence at t,e 2eginning o3 t,e discoer! p,ase53 Pro3essional does not ,ae to 2e a medical doctor onl! Asuita2l! licensed or certi3ied e=aminerB3 0,o can 2e e=amined ) part! to t,e case or person under t,e custod! or control o3 t,e part! %/id( Rule

a3 E=* Cannot get a medical e=amination on a nonpart! %i4e4 +itness(< 2ut !ou can depose t,em< as/ t,em to 2ring acop! o3 medical report4

G3 ot, sides can get cop! o3 report and all li/e reports o3 earlier e=amination or later i3 re?uested %Rule 8%2(%8((K3 T,e person +,o +as e=amined can get t,e report 3rom t,e Plainti33.s e=aminer %Rule 8%2(%6((4 ! doing so< t,e e=amined

part! +aies an! priilege as to an! o3 t,eir o+n reports 3rom t,eir o+n doctors4 %Rule 8%2(%((4

!e6uests for &dmission !ule 5K64 ) means o3 narro+ing t,e scope o3 trial 2! eliminating uncontested issues4 t,ings admitted are deemed esta2lis,ed 3or

purposes o3 t,e case>4 )ut,oriQes a part! see/ing admission o3 certain 3acts to send a re?uest to an opponent to admit t,ose 3acts4 T,e receiing

part! is re?uired to admit or den! t,e trut, o3 t,e statements< or raise an o2;ection to t,e re?uest4a4 E33ect i3 not responding 2! o2;ection or an ans+er %8H da!s( admission

84 )dmitting part! ma! learn later t,at s,e ,ad grounds to contest 3acts preiousl! admitted can moe +it,dra+ t,eadmissions %Rule 8%2((4

a4 #udges o3ten grant t,eses re?uests 2c t,e! +ant t,e issues resoled on t,e eidence and not concessions

!ule 5B -- De%ositions

) deposition is t,e ta/ing o3 testimon! 3rom a +itness under oat,4 Counsel 3or 2ot, parties sit do+n +it, t,e +itness< and t,eattorne!s re?uesting t,e depositions ?uestions t,e +itness4 T,e testimon! is recorded 2! a court stenograp,er4

64 Can ta/e t,e deposition o3 Aan! person< including a part!4B

persons +,o are not parties %+itnesses< p,!sicians< custodianso3 releant records< etc4( Rule 8H%a(%6(

>4 I3 a person to 2e deposed is not a part!< s,e must also 2e su)%oenaed 3or t,e deposition under Rule 4a4 ) su2poena is a court order to appear and gie testimon!4 24 I3 deposing counsel +is,es a non-part! deponent to produce records or ot,er tangi2le eidence 3or t,e deposition<

s,e must sere a su)%oena duces tecum to command t,e production o3 t,e re?uested items< speci3!ing t,edocuments or tings to 2e 2roug,t to t,e deposition4

84 Person deposed is under oat, and on t,e record ma! 2e e=amined 2! deposing counsel on an! issues +it,in t,e scope o3discoer!

a4 ")jectionsi4 Counsel representing t,e deponent ma! o2;ect< 2ut t,e +itness is usuall! re?uired to ans+er t,e ?uestion

%Rule 8H%c(%>((464 Counsel 3re?uentl! stipulate at t,e 2eginning o3 t,e deposition t,at t,e! +ill sae all o2;ections

%e=cept to t,e 3orm o3 t,e ?uestion or as to priilege( until t,e time o3 trial4ii4 0,ere an o2;ection is 2ased on priilege %or en3orce limitation 2! court order or present a motion under8H%d(%8(( Counsel 3or t,e deponent +ill instruct deponent not to ans+er t,e ?uestion

4 Counsel 3or t,e deponent ,as t,e rig,t to cross-e=amine a3ter deposing counsel ,as 3inis,ed %usuall! 3or clari3ication 2c cantal/ to ,er o+n +itness priatel!(

a4 I3 t,e deposition is a trial deposition %one t,at +ill 2e used at trial in place o3 t,e +itness.s lie testimon!(< counsel+ill cross-e=amine 3ull!

4 Rule 8H%2(%g( S an agent o3 an organiQation 2inds t,e organiQation in t,eir deposition4 T,e organiQation ,as a dut! to prepareand designate

4 lannon*a4 $ost e33ectie met,od o3 o2taining detailed in3ormation* gets to see t,e part! ans+er< part! must ans+er

spontaneousl! and uncoac,ed< counsel can 3rame 3ollo+-up < its Aon t,e recordB 24 Dra+2ac/* time and %cost o3 court reporter per page(


16/37

c4 ",ould 2e ta/en at t,e end o3 discoer! +,en !ou ,ae a lot o3 in3ormation

Duty to Su%%lement !ule 4K0e164 "upplementing Disclosures %automatic( and Responses %Interrogatories(

a4 Disclosures made under Rule >%a(< responses to interrogatories< re?uests 3or production< or re?uests 3or admissionS must supplement or correct i3 incorrect or incomplete +in a timel! manner

24 >%e(%>( c,anges must 2e disclosed 2! t,e time parties. pretrial disclosure4i4 No dut! to supplement la! +itnessesalmost impossi2le too massie ,undreds o3 ?uestions

>4 Not coered 2! t,e rule* depositions o3 non-e=perts

Discovery Certifications !ule 4K0g164 >%g(%6( "igning Disclosures and Discoer! Re?uests< responses< and o2;ections %Rule 66 3or disclosures( must 2e signed

a4 ma/ing certi3ications 2! signing 24 similar to Rule 66%2(

>4 >%g(%8( sanctioned 3or improper certi3ication +o su2stantial ;usti3ication ct determines i3 su2stantial ;usti3icationa4 0,o gets pa!s

i4 T,e signer< t,e part!< or 2ot, 24 0,o gets t,e sanctioned

i4 "ometimes t,e aggrieed part!ii4 "ometimes t,e court

Discovery Sanctions !ule 5< 0Failure to ma@e disclosures or to coo%erate1

64 5%a(

ii4 "ituations +,ere Rule 88 %interogattories( and 8 %production o3 documents( responses are sered 2ut t,eresponding part! 3ails to address particular interrogatoriesre?uests< eit,er 2! s/ipping t,em or 2! raisingillegitimate o2;ections*

64 8M%a(%8(%(*a4 corportationentit! 3ails to ma/e designation under 8H%2(%( 24 part! 3ails to ans+er an interrogator! under Rule 88c4 Part! 3ails to produce documents< 3ails to respond t,at inspection +ill 2e permitted< or

3ails to permit inspection under Rule 8iii4 "ituaitons +,ere a deponent s,o+s up 3or t,e deposition 2ut does not ans+er a particular ?uestion

64 8M%a(%8(%( S deponent 3ails to ans+er a ?uestion under 8H or 86i4 Note* 8M%a(%( S easie or incomplete disclosure< ans+er< or response is treated as a 3ailure to disclose<

ans+er< or respond64 T,e! ,ae responded 2ut le3t somet,ing out

>4 5!9 o3 Part! to )ttend O+n Deposition or to "ere Rule 88 or 8 Responses4a4 Note t,e di33erence 2et+een t,ese situations and partial 3ailures coered 2! 8M%a(4i4 Di33erence 2t+ t,is and 8M%a(

64 8M%a( coers partial 3ailures4 T,is section tal/s a2out TOT)L 3ailures>4 T,is is tal/ing a2out 3ailure to appear not disclosure4 8M%d( is also 3ailure to sere +,ere 8M%a( is

3ailing to ma/e designation or 3ailure to ans+er4 24 0,ats coered

i4 Part! didn.t een s,o+ up to its o+n depositionii4 Part! didn.t sere )N ans+ers to interrogatories

iii4 Part! didn.t respond )T )LL to a re?uest 3or inspection

4 5


17/37

1O0EVER< a court ma! issue t,ese sanctios upon a 3inding t,at a part! intentionall! 3ailed to presere suc, E"I in order todeprie ot,er parties o3 it4 Note t,at a part! ac?uires an affirmative duty to susend its normal document destruction olicy assoon as it reasonably anticiates litigation4 )t t,at point< t,e destruction polic! +ill not 2e an e=cuse 3or 3ailing to proidere?uested docs under Rule 84

4 5%3( Con3erence4 ) part! ma! 2e sanctioned 3or 3ailing to participate in good 3ait, +it, opposing counsel in3raming a discoer! plan4

0,en and ,o+ ma! parties re?uest ;uries!IT T" $>!O T!I&8 0!>89 5; 1

Mt, )mendment preseres rig,t to ;ur!Federal Courts ONL %state courts S loo/ to t,eir constitution to see +,at t,e! resere a ;ur! rig,t 3or(

64 Rig,t e=ists at la+< not in e?uit!a4 1o+ to tell i3 someone ,as a rig,t to ;ur! trial loo@ at the remedy that the claimant is see@ing I3 legal

remed! %usuall! (< t,en t,ere is a Mt, amendment rig,t to a ;ur! trial4i4 Legal claim remedies* usuall! damages

ii4 E?uita2le Claim remedies NO RI1T TO #UR64 In;unction

>4 "peci3ic Per3ormance84 Rescission4 Re3ormation

24 $i=ing legal claims and e?uita2le claimsi4 Preclusion doctrine* +,en legal claims mi=ed +e?uita2le claims< court +ill allo+ ;ur! to ,ear t,e 3acts on

t,e legal claim 3irst4 T,is later 2inds t,e court +ill allo+ t,e e?uita2le claim to 2e ,eard4c4 T,is a right to have a ;ur!: t,ere is no rig,t to refuse a ;ur! %t,at anot,er person properl! demanded(

>4 #ur! trial is +aied unless a part!.s demand is properl! sered and 3iled4

84 o# do you invo@e the right to jury trial?a4 $a/e a +ritten demand can 2e included in t,e complaint

i4 No later t,an 6 da!s a3ter last pleading

0,en can a ;udge decide a case +it,out a trial S>//&!O $>D/9T

64 !ule GK0a1 )ut,oriQes t,e Court to enter ;udgment +,eneer it appears t,at t,ere is %6( no genuine dispute o3 material

3act and %>( t,e moant is entitled to ;udgment as a matter o3 la+>4 )llo+s earl! resolution o3 cases in +,ic, t,e Plainti33 meets t,e minimal 2urden to plead t,e elements o3 a compensa2le

claim %de3eats 6>%2(%((< 2ut cannot proe one or more o3 t,ose elements484 %2( Can ma/e motion 3or "# an! time until 8H da!s a3ter t,e close o3 all discoer! %3iled 2e3ore trial(4 %c(%8( T,e court need consider onl! t,e cited materials UT it ma! consider ot,er materials in t,e record4 Partial summar! ;udgment %Rule %g(( disposes o3 some< 2ut not all< issues in t,e case

!"&D/&P F"! !>89 5< S&CTI"S

) "et o3 Ordered uestions 3or Discoer!-"anctions "ituations

6( Did part! diso2e! order 8M%2(4

>( I3 not< did part! 3ail to sere responsesappear at depos 8M%d(4 Fail to sere disclosure at all 8M%a(%8(%)( and 8M%c(%6(4

8( I3 part! sered disclosure 2ut did not ans+er particular ?4 or disclose particular 3act< 8M%c(%6( applies and part! cannot use in3o attrial< and ;ur! ma! 2e in3ormed4 )lso< ot,er sanctions in 8M%2(%>(%)(%i(-%i(4 %"ee 8M%c(%6((4

( I3 part! sered discoer! resp4 or s,o+ed 3or depos4 2ut did not ans+er particular ?4re?uest< moe to compel under 8M%a(4 Canget costs o3 motion i3 it.s granted4

( I3 part! sered disclosuresdiscoer! responses 2ut disclosuresresponses +ere incorrect< incomplete< not in good 3ait,< not made

a3ter reasona2le inestigation< >%g( applies4 Court AmustB impose Aappropriate sanction4B >%g(%8(4


18/37

4 Test If the evidence( ta@en in the light most favora)le to the nonmoving %arty( sho#s that there are no genuine

issues of material fact and that the moving %arty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la#3

a4 )not,er test +,et,er a reasona2le ;ur! could 3ind 3or t,e non-moing part!

M4 T#o situations for summary judgment:64 parties agree on all t,e 3acts and t,e dispute is entirel! a2out t,e la+>4 parties disagree a2out t,e 3acts< 2ut t,ere is no genuine dispute one side ,as so little eidence

t,at no reasona2le ;ur! could 3ind 3or t,at side

94 &ssessment of the 9vidence 0for situation 41a4 Court is allo+ed to go 2e!ond t,e allegations o3 t,e pleadings and to assess eidence %unli/e 3or 6>%2(%((4

i4 I3 court loo/s to eidentiar! materials in ruling on 6>%2(%(< simpl! conerts motion into one 3or summar! ;udgment

ii4 Court considers materials suc, as a33idaits or ot,er s+orn statements suc, as depositions or interrogator!ans+ers4 )ll t,e eidence is considered in +ritten 3orm4

64 affidavits a oluntar! declaration o3 3acts +ritten do+n and s+orn to 2! t,e declarant 24 Court s,ould dra+ 3rom t,e eidence all reasona2le in3erences on 2e,al3 o3 t,e non-moing part!< 2ut must decide

t,at in3erences are reasona2le4i4 Court does not assess credi2ilit! %3or ;ur!(

64 I3 t,e resolution o3 t,e case turns on +,ic, +itness is 2elieed< t,e court +ill den! summar! ;udgment4

c4 urden:i4 )urden of %roduction t,e o2ligation o3 one side to come 3or+ard +it, eidence to support its claim

ii4 )urden of %ersuasion t,e degree o3 certaint! t,e 3act 3inder must ,ae 2e3ore it can 3ind 3or one side64 No summar! ;udgment 3or De3endant i3 Plainti33 ,as met 2urden o3 production>4 No summar! ;udgment 3or De3endant i3 eidence unreasona2l! 3aors t,e part! +it, t,e 2urden84 No summar! ;udgment granted +,ere reasona2le minds can disagree

E3 What=s the difference )t# summary judgment and 240)10K1?

a4 6>%2(%( 2ased on t,e 3ace o3 a complaint Sallegations 24 6>%2(%( applies to insu33icient pleadingsc4 "um4 #udgment %Rule (* a3ter eidence reealed an! reasona2le 3act 3inder +ould ,ae to 3ind onl! one +a!4d4 In sum4 #udgment< a non moant can ma/e a legal argument doesn.t ,ae to 2e in dispute 3or t,e ;udge to

determine summar! ;udgment not permitted4i4 $otion to dismiss - court relies solel! on t,e pleadings to determine t,e 3acts

64 )ll 3acts alleged in t,e complaint are assumed to 2e true %i3 t,e!re plausi2le(ii4 $otion 3or "# S court loo/s 2e!ond t,e pleadings and considers material ssuc, as a33idaits or ot,er s+orn

statements64 In ruling on a motion 3or "#< t,e court does not assess credi2ilit! S court ie+s eidence in 3aor

o3 t,e non-moing part!e. Coble v. City of ,hite ouse

i4 Co2le claimed t,at O33icer Carne! used e=cessie 3orce against ,im during an arrest 3or drun/ driing4 T,eDistrict Court entered "# in 3aor o3 Carne!

ii4 Issue* 0,et,er t,e District Court erred in 3ining t,at t,ere +as no ?uestion o3 3act 3or trial 2ecause Co2le.stestimone! regarding t,e 3orce +as contradicted 2! a contemporaneous audio recording

iii4 1olding*64 Een i3 t,e part!.s stor! is 2latantl! contradicted 2! t,e record< t,is does not permit t,e court to

discredit ,is entire ersion o3 t,e eents4>4 In reie+ing a summar! ;udgment motion< credi)ility judgments are %rohi)ited384 0,en t,e non-moing part! presents direct eidence re3uting t,e moing part!.s motion 3or

summar! ;udgment< t,e court must accept t,at eidence as true434 Timeline* [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

6H4 !es%onding to /otiona4 0,en a summar! ;udgment motion is made and ade?uatel! supported< t,e non-moant must respond 2! producing

admissi2le eidence t,at tends to proe t,e c,allenged element4 Rule %c(%6(< %>( 24 I3 non-moant produces suc, counterailing eidence< summar! ;udgment must 2e denied4

i4 T,us< t,e 2urden is on t,e part! opposing summar! ;udgment to s,o+ t,at ,e ,as legall! competenteidence upon +,ic, a ;ur! could resole t,e 3actual issues in ,is 3aor4

c4 I3 t,e non-moant does not produce counterailing eidence< ,e ,as not demonstrated t,at t,ere is a 3actual dispute3or t,e ;ur! to decide4

d4 Celotex M otion* a part! ma! motion 3or "# +,en an nonmoantopposing part! ,as a 2urden o3 proo3 and 3ails to proide 3actual support to esta2lis, t,e 2urden o3 proo34


19/37

i. Nonmoant ,as 2urden o3 proing somet,ing and moant can point to a lac/ o3 eidence on t,at pointii. ) part! can support a "# motion +it, materials t,at s,o+ t,at opponent +,o ,as t,e 2urden o3 proing a

material %essential( 3act cannot proe t,at 3actiii. 1o+

/. )ttac, an interrogator! ans+er +,ere nonmoant sa!s t,at t,e! don.t ,ae eidence on t,at point4T,at.s enoug, to support t,e 2urden 3or motion o3 "#< so t,e 2urden is s,i3ted 2ac/ to t,e P tore2ut4

0,at motions can t,e part! ma/e a3ter eidence ,as 2een presented P"ST-T!&I8 /"TI"S

0Directed Herdict1 !ule GB0a1 $udgment as a /atter of 8a# a@a $/"8 Post trial64 FRCP H%a( #udgment as a $OL in a ;ur! trial*

a4 I3 t,e court< ,aing ,eard t,e eidence at trial< concluded t,at no reasona2le ;ur! could 3ind 3or one side< t,e courtma! enter ;udgment +it,out su2mitting t,e case to t,e ;ur!

24 Een i3 t,e court 2eliees t,at t,e preponderance o3 t,e eidence 3aors one part!< i3 ;ur! could rationall! 3ind 3ort,e ot,er part!< it must 2e gien an opportunit! to assess t,e case

c4 #$OL* determined 2e3ore t,e ;ur! goes out< ta/ing t,e case a+a! 3rom t,e ;ur!i4 Used as a deice 2! ;udges t,at t,e! ma! use to control t,e ;ur!.s decision ma/ing process

ii4 Eit,er part! ma! moe 3or a #$OL %directed erdict(iii4 Determines t,e outcome as a $OL

d4 Part! can moe on a single issue %ie* motition 3or ;udgemnet on one issue(e4 Ver! ,ard to get S ;udges +ant a ;ur! erdict to +or/ +it, and usuall! ;uries get it rig,t

>4 "tandards*a4 T,ree standards*

i4 Case s,ould go to ;ur! i3 t,ere is een Aa scintillaB o3 eidence to support t,e opposing part!.s caseii4 Re?uires ;udge to consider only eidence t,at supports t,e case o3 nonmoing part! S ;udge must assume

t,e trut, o3 all eidence o33ered 2! nonmoing part!< ta/e all in3erences 3rom t,e eidence in lig,t most3aora2le to t,at part!< and enter ;mol onl! i3 t,at eidence +ould not support a erdict 3or t,e nonmoing part!

64 Test* 0,et,er t,e ;ur!< i3 it c,ooses to 2eliee t,e nonmoant.s eidence< +ould ,ae su33icienteidence to support a erdict 3or t,at part!

iii4 Re?uires t,e ;udge to consider t,e nonmoing part!.s eidence in its most 3aora2le lig,t 2ut also consideran! eidence put 3or+ard 2! t,e moing part! t,at is not impeac,ed or contradicted 2! t,e opposing part!.seidence

84 Di33erence 2et+een "#*

a4 T,e court< in ";< ma/es its ruling on t,e 2asis o3 a33iadits 2e3ore trial +,ile DV is granted on t,e 2asis o3 t,eeidence directed at t,e time4

!ene#ed $/"8 0$"H1 !ule GB0)16( FRCP H%2( #NOV %Rene+ed #$OL( %,ard to +in t,is motion(

a( ) part! ma! moe 3or #NOV a3ter ;ur! renders an un3aora2le erdict %up to >9 da!s a3ter ;udgment rendered( only if t,e part! made a motion 3or #$OL before t,e ;ur! retired to deli2erate

2( "idesteps Mt, )mendment 2c instead o3 stripping erdict 3rom ;ur!< t,is supposes t,at court is reisiting a motion 3or #$OLt,us< court is determining a question of law< not re-e=amining a ;ur! determination on a question of fact

c( 0,! +ould t,e court den! a #$OL 2e3ore a erdict< and approe a #NOV a3ter t,e erdicti( Fait, in t,e ;ur! s!stem S ;udicial s!stem ,as 3ait, ;uries +ill arrie at correct ans+er +it,out ;udicial interentionii( Presering a erdict S i3 ;udge grants #$OL before t,e erdict< and t,e appellate court reerses t,e case< t,e entire trail

must 2e redone 2c t,e ;ur! neer rendered a erdict>( "tandard

a( "ame as "#* court ma! enter #NOV i3 eidence presented onl! allo+s 3or a reasona2le ;ur! to come to only one conclusion 2( Court must ie+ t,e 3acts in t,e lig,t most 3aora2le to t,e non-moing part!

e# Trial !ule GE64 Not dispositie>4 )n! part! can motion 3or ne+ trial at 2enc, or ;ur! trial84 T#o general categories o3 cases in +,ic, courts ,ae traditionall! granted ne+ trials*

a4 Procedural Errors in t,e trial process %a iolation o3 due process( S ma! taint t,e ;uries. decision ma/ing process 24 Process +as 3air 2ut ;udge 2eliees result +as clearl! +rong %erdict +ent against t,e great +eig,t o3 t,e eidence(

i4 NO PREVIOU" $OTION" REUIRED4 Notice t,at a ne+ trial can 2e granted 2! 021 motion 3rom a part! or 041 on t,e courts o+n initaite


20/37

4 I3 #$OL motion +as denied %meaning t,ere +as enoug, eidence 3or reasona2le minds to disagree< 2ut t,e great +eig,t o3t,e eidence goes a certain +a!(< ;udge can grant a ne+ trial4

a4 cannot ta/e t,e case a+a! 3rom t,e ;ur! i3 reasona2le minds can agree 24 LO0ER "T)ND)RD T1)T #NOV* +it, a H%2( !ou ,ae to s,o+ NO reasona2le ;uror could ,ae come +it, t,e

erdict4 0it, Rule 7< its sa!ing t,e scale +as in !our 3aor and its 3is,! t,at its coming out t,is +a!i4 Can ma/e a H%2( 2e3ore t,e erdict and a rule 7 as Ain t,e alternatieB

4 Test #udge ma! grant a ne+ trial i3 t,e ;ur!.s erdict is Aagainst t,e clear +eig,t o3 t,e eidence4BM4 T,e ;udge ma! consider t,e credi2ilit! o3 t,e +itnesses94 #udge ma! also grant partial ne+ trials74 I3 t,e rig,t to ;ur! trial is ino/ed< t,e 3irst and t,e second trial must go 2e3ore a ;ur! Rule 89

0adurian v. 1nderwriters at 2loyds of 2ondon S Co) reerse t,e trial court.s denial o3 a ne+ trial4 T,e ;ur!:s erdict +as against t,egreat +eig,t o3 t,e eidence S strong eidence t,at /ne+ ,e +as giing 3alse testimon!

ac@-u%* I3 !ou miss t,e >9-da! +indo+ to re?uest under Rule 7< see i3 Rule H%a(-%c( can sae !ou4I3 !ou discoer eidence more t,an >9 da!s a3ter t,e ;udgment< part! can moe 3or relie3 under Rule H< proided t,e motion

is 3iled no later t,an one !ear a3ter entr! o3 t,e ;udgment4

Rule H S Relie3 3rom an order %a( Clerical mista/es%2( #udgment

%i( ies legal e33ect%ii( I3 it +as ;mt 3or t,e claimant< t,e! 2ecome a ;udgment creditor

64 ou can use legal mec,anisms %s,eri33 can seiQe propert!(%iii( Proo/es preclusion doctrine S cant relitigate same claims%i( )llo+s court to acate a ;mt

%6( Usuall! 2! G%>( Ne+ eidence S eidence ,ad to ,ae e=isted at t,e time o3 t,e intial trial %miracle drug e=ample(

a4 0e.d neer ,ae an! 3inalit! i3 t,is +asn.t t,e case


21/37

$a! parties include additional claims and parties in t,eir la+suit $"ID9!

lannon p4 >7 ,!pos

64 Traditional rule in )merican courts At,e Plainti33 is master o3 ,is claimB

a4 Plainti33 can decide +,o t,e parties to t,e suit +ill 2e and +,ic, claims +ill 2e asserted in t,e action>4 )llo+s 3or e33icienc! and aoids inconsistent ;udgments84 Does not re?uire parties to 2e ;oined recogniQes di33erences in parties. +is,es and ;urisdictional pro2lems

$oinder of &dditional Parties

!ule 4B0a1 Initial $oinder

021 Plaintiffs3 Persons ma! ;oin in one action or action as plainti33s i3*0&1 t,e! assert an! rig,t to relie3 ;ointl!< seerall!< or in t,e alternatie +it, respect to or arising out o3 t,e same

transaction< occurrence< or series o3 transactions or occurrences: &D01 an! ?uestion o3 la+ or 3act common to all plainti33s +ill arise in t,e action4

!ule 4B0a1021 allo+s Plainti33s to sue toget,er i3 t,e! assert claims arising out o3 t,e same transaction or occurrence %or series o3 transactions oroccurrences( )ND t,eir claims against t,e De3endant%s( +ill inole a common ?uestion o3 la+ or 3act4

If 4B0&1 satisfied( inevita)ly satisfies 4B01

Does not re6uire %arties to )e joined #henever the criteria in the rules are met

041 Defendants3!ule 4B0a1041 allo#s Plaintiff0s1 to sue multi%le Defendants in a single action if the same criteria are met3

$oinder of Claims

!ule 2;0a1

In eneral3 ) part! asserting a claim< counterclaim< crossclaim< or t,ird-part! claim ma! ;oin< as independent or alternatie claims< asman! claims as it ,as against an opposing part!4


22/37

• Proides t,at a part! see/ing relie3 3rom an opposing part! ma! ;oin +it, ,is original claim an! additional claims ,e ,as against

t,at opposing part!

• APart!B means an! part! see/ing relie3 against anot,er part! %not ;ust t,e original Plainti33(

• No common transaction or occurrence re?uirement permissie %can ;oin unrelated claims(

o "ae costs 3iling costs < etcK& mone! ;udgment all at once

!ule 40)1* "eparate Trials4 For conenience< to aoid pre;udice< or to e=pedite and economiQe< t,e court ma! order a separate trial o3one or more separate issues< claims< cross-claims< counterclaims< or t,ird-part! claims4 0,en ordering a separate trial< t,e court ma! presere an! 3ederal rig,t to a ;ur! trial4

a( Polic! o3 Rule >* +eig,ing e33icienc!< conenience< and ;ustice4 Rule > lur/s in t,e 2ac/ground4 2( Orders separate trial i3 it +ould 2e con3using 3or t,e ;ur! to ,ear eer!t,ing in one4

!ule 25 Counterclaims and Crossclaims 0comes in t#o flavors1

a1 Com%ulsory Counterclaim 250a1 ' related

a4 t,e de3ending part!.s counterclaim arises 3rom t,e same transaction or occurrence as t,e claim against ,im 24 ,e must assert it in t,e original action or lose itc4 3orces parties +,o are alread! adersaries to litigate all claims arising 3rom t,e same set o3 3acts in a single actiond4 $ust 2e asserted or else t,e part! loses t,e a2ilit! to assert it later in litigation

i4 I3 G 3ails to assert compulsor! counterclaim in t,e 3irst action< and attempts to assert t,e claim in laterlitigation< can use Rule 68 as de3ense 2! ma/ing a motion 3or "# %(< eidenced 2! t,e pleadings prior totrial< to 2ar G 3rom asserting t,e claim

64 1ere< compulsor! counterclaim is a de3ense and "# motion is t,e procedural mec,anism to raise

t,at de3enseii4 Polic!* +ould 2e ine33icient to ,ae a separate la+suit a2out t,e same accident4)1 Permissive Counterclaim 250)1%ersonal autonomy theme

a3 )n! claim t,at is not compulsor!)3 Court +ill almost certainl! order a separate trial under !ule 40)1c3 allo+s a De3endant< once 2roug,t 2e3ore t,e court< to settle all ,is claims against ,is opponent +it,out ,aing to 3ile

a separate la+suitg1 Crossclaim 250g1

a4 assertion o3 crossclaims arising out o3 t,e same transaction or occurrence as t,e main claim 24 ) crossclaim is a claim asserted 2! one part! against a co-part! %someone on t,e same side o3 t,e as t,e claimant(c4 allo+ing assertion o3 t,ese claims in t,e main action promotes e33icienc! and consistenc! 2ecause t,e same

underl!ing 3acts +ill 2e litigated on t,e main claim and on t,e crossclaimd4 crossclaim is optional %+ill not 2e +aied(e4 Rule 69 S a part! see/ing relie3 3rom an opposing part! ma! ;oin +it, ,is original claim an! additional claims ,e

,as against t,e opposing part! %,ardest t,ing a2out 69 is to remem2er t,at its t,ere(i4 No need 3or common transaction or occurance

ii4 Note* ApleaderB includes original < part! counterclaiming< part! crossclaiming< or a t,ird part! claimc( #oining )dditional Parties go to rule >H Rule 250h1

Rule >H #oining Parties

• )pplies to or to G asserting counterclaims

• 0,en can a ;oin seeral Gs

o 0,en t,e claims arise out o3 t,e same transaction )ND

o )n! ?uestion o3 la+3act in common

o $ost o3 t,e time< i3 !ou satis3! %)(< !ou satis3! %(

$urisdictional Issues #ith $oinder $oinder rules do not confer any rules a)out jurisdiction

#oinder claim is still must 2e su2;ect to su2;ect matter ;urisdiction in t,e 3ederal courts4

Im%leader !ule 2

0,en can a de3endant 2ring in a ne+ part! and assert a claim against ,im or ,er• Parties*

o T,e G t,ird-part! plainti33

o T,e impleaded t,ird-part! de3endant

• Rule 6%a( gies t,e G a limited rig,t to implead ne+ parties against +,om s,e ,as claims related to t,e main action4

o G ma! 2ring in a person not !et a part! to t,e suit +,o ma! 2e lia2le to ,er for all or %art o3 an! recoer! t,e

Plainti33 o2tains on t,e main claim4 Aderiatie lia2ilit!B

indemni3ication complete reim2ursement


23/37

contri2ution partial reim2ursement

• $ade 2! common la+< 2! contract< or 2! statute T,e state su2stantie la+ must allo+ 3or contri2ution or indemni3ication4

• T,e impleaded part! ma! escape lia2ilit! 2! de3eating eit,er*

o T,e .s original claim %2ecause i3 t,e doesn.t ,ae a claim against t,e original G< t,e impleaded part! +ill also not

2e ,eld lia2le(o T,e G deriatie claim against ,er

T,e rule allo+s 8P impleader to assert de3enses to 2ot,

• Not re?uired S Ama!B S under 6%a(%6(

• )llo+ed to tac/ on 69%a( claims i3 G ,as a claim t,at relates 3irst

First General v. Miller

- In "C< cannot implead a t,ird-part! de3endant under Rule 6 3or contri2ution %partial amount(< onl! 3or indemni3ication4ecause t,e original de3endant must ,ae paid 2e3ore an action 3or contri2ution is ia2le la+suit isn.t done !et4- "4C4 S can implead 3or indemni3ication< NOT contri2ution Claim 3or contri2ution not ripe until original G ,as paid

more t,an ,is s,are o3 damages S until ;udgment against GFOR E\)$* &ssuming that the relevant state law authori3es contribution among 4oint tortfeasors5.

In "C< cannot implede someone as ;oint tort3easor in contri2ution e?uita2le indemnit!

Marvicka v. rod!ead"Garrett Co.

Aall or part o3 Plainti33.s claimB

64 Contri2ution 2ased upon t,e common< t,oug, not necessaril! identical< lia2ilit! o3 t+o or more actors 3or t,e same

in;ur!4 It e?ualiQes t,e 2urden on t,e +rongdoers 2! re?uiring eac, to pa! ,is o+n proportionate s,are o3 damages4

>4 Indemnit! ena2les one tort3easor to s,i3t t,e entire 2urden o3 t,e ;udgment to anot,er: allo+s one +,o ,as 2een

compelled to pa! solel! 2ecause o3 a certain legal relations,ip to s,i3t t,e ultimate 2urdenT,e 3act t,at contri2ution ma! not actuall! 2e o2tained until t,e original de3endant ,as 2een cast in ;udgment and ,as paid does not preent impleader4

!ule 20a1021

Impleader claim is treated li/e an original suit %ie* 3or pleading< 3iling< process and ,as t,e same options to ans+er or moe to dismiss4Original De3endant ma! implead a 8P +it,in 2 days o3 ans+ering t,e original complaint +it,out o2taining leae o3 court4

)utomatic Impleader proision

outside t,is period it is al+a!s +it,in t,e court.s discretion to re3use to entertain t,e impleader claim Factors 3aoring* e33icienc! o3 ,earing t,e related claims toget,er and aoidance o3 repeated suits or inconsistent

;udgments Factors suggesting denial o3 impleader* dela! in see/ing impleader< complication o3 t,e issues in t,e main action<

and potential pre;udice to t,e plainti33 3rom impleading a s!mpat,etic t,ird part!

!ule 20a1041

A0,at a T,ird-Part! De3endant Can DoB* act li/e a normal G must assert an! de3ense against t,ird-part! plainti33.s claim under rule 6>

T,e impleaded part! ma! escape lia2ilit! 2! de3eating eit,er t,e Plainti33.s original claim or t,e De3endant.s derivative claim against ,er4 Conse?uentl! t,e rule allo+s ,er to assert de3enses to 2ot,4 6%a(%>(%)( De3enses to t,ird-part! claim

6%a(%>(%C( De3enses to plainti33.s claim against original de3endanti( Derivative lia)ility* only used 3or reim2ursement< t,eories o3 indemni3ication %3rom e=press / proision or implication(

or contri2ution %;ointl! and seerall! lia2le in tort(%6( T,ird part!.s lia2ilit! deries 3rom !ou as a de3ending part! 2eing lia2le to !our opponent%>( Impleaded part! is onl! lia2le i3*

%a( Original D is 3ound lia2le: and%2( Original D success3ull! demonstrates t,e 8P is lia2le 3or all or part o3 t,e P.s remed!

2( ot mandator! 2c de3ending part! ma! not ,ae c,osen t,e 3orum

$urisdictional Issues #ith Im%leader

Im%leading a third-%arty defendant does not affect the court=s jurisdiction over the original claim***** %3 4


24/37

Can a part! pursue its claim in a gien court s!stem Su)ject /atter $urisdiction

Federal courts ,ae limited su2;ect matter ;urisdiction< +,ic, means t,e! can ,ear onl! speci3ic t!pes o3 cases4T,ere is a presumption against 3ederal ;urisdiction4

Three categories of federal su)ject matter jurisdiction:

64 3ederal ?uestion

cases t,at Aarise underB 3ederal la+>4 diersit! cases84 supplemental ;urisdiction

State courts %an!t,ing not 3ed CO)s( ,ae general su2;ect matter ;urisdiction< +,ic, means t,at t,e! can ,ear an! cogniQa2le claimat all4

- %E=cept t,ose oer +,ic, t,e 3ederal courts ,ae e=clusie su2;ect matter ;urisdiction admiralt!< 2an/ruptc!< patent

and cop!rig,t in3ringement< antitrust< and securities cases4(

Su)ject matter jurisdiction cannot )e #aived )y the %arties 0rule 6>( or the court( )ecause for the court to eercise jurisdictionover the case #ould )e unconstitutional3 Court #ould other#ise )e acting unconstitutionally3

Li/e+ise< parties cannot AcreateB su2;ect matter ;urisdiction 2! consenting to suit in t,e 3ederal courts %or i3 one part! neerma/es a motion(4

Court can+ills,ould dismiss sua sponte %court dismisses case on its o+n(4

T#o Ty%es of Su) /atter $ur

64 Original "4$4 #ur %must 2e in t,is ;d=n 3or remoal(>4 )ppellate "4$4 #ur

3or t,e most part an!t,ing t,at can 2e ,eard in 3ed ct can 2e ,eard in state ctFederal uestion6( U" Const4 )rt4 III< @ 6 & >>( >9 U4"4C4 @ 6886* Federal uestion4 T,e district courts s,all ,ae original ;urisdiction o3 all ciil actions arising under t,e

Constitution< la+s< or treaties o3 t,e U4"4a( "tatute interpreted more narro+l! t,an t,e Constitution 2( "tate ;urisdiction oer cases raising 3ederal ?uestions is concurrent a2sent e=clusiit! to t,e 3ederal courtst,is is re3erred to

as concurrent 4urisdictioni1 Concurrent ;urisdiction* 0,en more t,an one court ,as "$# oer a case< and a litigant can c,oose +,ic, court to 2ring

t,e case4 O3ten re3ers to +,en 2ot, state and 3ederal courts ,ae "$#4 It ta/es an a33irmatie act o3 Congress to ta/e ;urisdiction a+a! 3rom state courts4

c( Ordain and esta2lis, clause* means t,at Congress can gie t,e lo+er courts all or 4ust some o3 t,e ;urisdiction granted 2! t,eConstitution4

d( T,e U" "upreme Court ,as ;urisdiction to reie+ state court decisions inoling 3ederal ?uestions een +,en lo+er 3ederalcourts do not ,ae t,e ;urisdiction under t,e 3ederal ?uestion statute4

e( Polic!*i1 Promotes uni3ormit! o3 3ederal la+ii1 Encourages ;udicial e=pertise in interpreting 3ederal la+iii1 Protects against possi2le state-court ,ostilit! to claims arising under 3ederal la+

8( A)rising UnderB #urisdictiona( Federal Ingredient Test* "$# e=ists i3< at a minimum< one part o3 t,e CO) inoles a 3ederal issue4 6sborn v. )an* of 1.

i1 i4e4 tort claim 2ut FD) regulat