Civ pro rule statements Flashcards
Scope of discovery
Discovery is generally permitted with regard to any non privileged material relevant to any party’s claim or defense in the action
Discovery and admissibility
Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable
Test for whether information is discoverable
The test is whether the information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
Limits on discovering work product in general
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
When can work product be discovered
Work product may be subject to discovery, however, if the party shows that it has a substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means
Discovery of experts not testifying at trial
If an expert is retained by another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial but is not expected to be called as a witness, then discovery is permitted only on a showing of exceptional circumstances
Discovering ESI
A party may request the other party to produce and permit the inspection of any discoverable documents or electronically stored information
Spoliation of evidence
Spoliation of evidence is the negligent or intentional destruction or significant alteration of evidence required for discovery
Duty to preserve evidence
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
What happens once the duty to preserve is triggered
Once a duty to preserve evidence is triggered, the party in possession of the evidence must take reasonable measures to preserve it
Routine operations that may destroy evidence
If a party has a policy in place that results in routine operations that may destroy evidence, 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
Sanctions for failing to preserve ESI
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
Sanctions for spoliation
Sanctions are authorized for spoliation of evidence only if the information cannot be restored or replaced by additional discovery
Determining sanctions for spoliation
In determining sanctions for spoliation, the court should consider the prejudice to another party and the intent of the party that failed to preserve the evidence
Costly retrieval of information
When retrieval of information is possible, even if typically considered inaccessible because of cost, a court may order it and assign the costs to the party who destroyed the evidence. In those situations, no further sanctions may be imposed
What if a party failed to preserve ESI and they can’t restore or replace it?
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
Available sanctions for failing to preserve information
If the court finds that the sanctioned party acted with the purpose of depriving the other party of the evidence’s usage in litigation, the available sanctions include a presumption that the destroyed information was unfavorable to the sanctioned party, a jury instruction hat it may or must presume the information was unfavorable, or entry of a default judgment against the party
Removal in general
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 subject matter JDX of a district court
When can fed courts exercise DJ
Federal courts may exercise diversity JDX over actions when 1. the opposing parties to an action are citizens of different states and 2. the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
Proving the amount in controversy for diversity JDX cases
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 and diversity JDX
If removal is sought solely based on diversity jurisdiction, the claim may be removed only if no defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is field
Transfering a case to a different venue
For the convenience of the parties and in the interests of justice, a district court in which venue is proper may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought
Proper venue
Venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located; a substantial part of the events or omissions the claim is based on occurred; or a substantial part of the property that is subject of the action is located
Transfer based on forum selection clauses
When transfer is sought on the basis of a forum selection clause in a contract, the clause is accorded respect.
Forum selection clauses that specify a federal forum
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.
SCOTUS on forum selection clauses
The supreme court has held that a forum selection clause should be given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases
Choice of law if original venue was proper
Generally, if the venue of an action is transferred when the original venue is proper, then 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
Choice of law when venue transferred because of forum selection clause
When venue is transferred based on a valid forum selection clause, the transferee court must apply the law, including 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
The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating an identical claim in a subsequent action
Issue preclusion rule statement
Issue preclusion 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 and parties
Issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties, but only that the party against whom the issue is to be precluded was a party to the original action
Elements for issue preclusion to apply
Elements necessary for issue preclusion to apply are 1. that the issue sought to be precluded is the same as that involved in the prior action; 2. the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action; 3. the issue must have been determined by a valid and binding judgment; and 4. the determination of the issue must have been essential to the prior judgment
12b motions
A defendant may file a motion under the FRCP 12(b) to raise several different defenses, including failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and insufficient service of process
When must 12b defenses be raised
These defenses must be raised in the first pre-answer motion (or if none, in the answer), or else they are generally waived
Omnibus motion rule
Under the omnibus motion rule, when a party makes a pre-answer motion raising one of these defenses but omitting the other, the party may not make another pre-answer motion raising one of the omitted defenses that was available to the party when the earlier motion was filed. The party is deemed to have waived the excluded defenses
Amending a motion to dismiss to raise an omitted ground
Although not specifically provided for in the FRCP, courts have generally allowed a party to amend a motion to dismiss to raise an omitted ground if the party acts promptly and before the court rules on the original motion
Cross claims against defendants
The rules provide that an answer may state as a cross claim any claim against a co-defendant, so long as the cross claim arises out of the same event that is the subject of the original claim
Federal question JDX
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States
Diversity jurisdiction
Federal district courts have jurisdiction over actions when opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Complete diversity
For a court to have diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity, meaning that no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.