Civ Pro Flashcards
General rule for discovery
Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any non-privileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense in the action. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. The test is whether the information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.
Discovery work-product rule
In general, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative. Such materials will be subject to discovery, however, if the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.
Duty to preserve electronically discoverable information
A party may request the other party to produce and permit the inspection of any discoverable documents or electronically stored information. Spoliation of evidence is the negligent or intentional destruction or significant alteration of evidence required for discovery. When litigation is reasonably anticipated, even if it has not yet been commenced, potential litigants in possession of potentially relevant evidence have a duty to preserve such evidence. Once a duty to preserve evidence is triggered, the party in possession of the evidence must take reasonable measures to preserve it. If a party has a policy in place that results in routine operations that may destroy evidence, such as electronically stored information, that party must affirmatively act to prevent the destruction or alteration of such evidence, even if the destruction would typically occur in the regular course of business. A party may be subject to sanctions for failing to take reasonable steps to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation.
When are sanctions authorized for spoliation of evidence?
Sanctions are authorized for spoliation of evidence only if the information cannot be restored or replaced by additional discovery. In determining sanctions, the court should consider the prejudice to another party and the intent of the party that failed to preserve the evidence.
When retrieval of the information is possible, even if typically considered inaccessible due to cost of retrieval, a court may order it and assign the costs to the party who destroyed the evidence; no further sanctions may be imposed.
If a party failed to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved and it cannot be restored or replaced, the court may order alternate sanctions against the wrongful party, limited to the court’s discretion of those necessary to cure any prejudice to the other party.
What sanctions can the court impose for spoliation of evidence?
If the court finds that the sanctioned party acted with the purpose of depriving the other party of the evidence’s use in litigation, then the available sanctions include (i) a presumption that the destroyed or lost information was unfavorable to the sanctioned party; (ii) a jury instruction that it may or it must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (iii) an entry of a default judgment against the party.
Diversity jx rule statement
Federal courts may exercise original diversity jurisdiction over actions when (i) the parties to an action are citizens of different states and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Generally, a plaintiff’s good-faith assertion in the complaint that the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement is sufficient, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount alleged.
Removal rule statement
Generally, the defendant in any civil action filed in state court has the right to remove it to the district court for the district in which the state court action was filed as long as the civil action is within the original jurisdiction of the U.S. district court.
General transfer of venue rule statement
For the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
Where is venue proper?
Venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides or in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred.
Effect of a forum selection clause on venue
When transfer is sought on the basis of a forum selection clause in a contract, the clause is accorded respect. If the clause specifies a federal forum, most circuit courts treat the clause as prima facie valid, to be set aside only upon a strong showing that transfer would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause was invalid for reasons such as fraud or overreaching. The Supreme Court has held that a forum selection clause should be given “controlling weight in all but the most exceptional case,” even if the clause is unenforceable under applicable state law.
Effect of forum selection clause on choice-of-law transfer
Generally, if the venue of an action is transferred when the original venue is proper, the court to which the action is transferred must apply the law of the state of the transferor court, including that state’s rules regarding conflict of law. However, when venue is transferred based on a valid forum selection clause, the transferee court must apply the law, including the choice-of-law rules, of the state in which it is located. The transferee court should not apply the law of the transferor court because the parties have contractually waived their right to the application of that law by agreeing to be subject to the laws of the transferee venue.
Claim preclusion definition
The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action.
Claim preclusion elements
For claim preclusion to apply, the claimant and the defendant must be the same (and in the same roles) in both the original action and the subsequently filed action. Because application of claim preclusion is limited to the parties (or their privies), a similar action by a different party would not be precluded.
Issue preclusion definition
The doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) precludes the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim.
Issue preclusion elements
Unlike claim preclusion, issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties, but only that the party against whom the issue is to be precluded, or one in privity with that party, must have been a party to the original action (i.e., offensive collateral estoppel).
Other elements necessary are that (i) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action; (ii) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action; (iii) the issue must have been determined by a valid and binding final judgment; and (iv) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the prior judgment.
