Civil Procedure Flashcards
Initial mandatory disclosures
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires parties to disclose certain information “without awaiting a discovery request.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). These initial disclosures must include the names and, if known, the contact information of individuals “likely to have discoverable information” as well as the subject of that information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). This obligation applies, however, only to individuals whose information the disclosing party “may use to support its claims or defenses.” Id. Thus, there is no obligation to disclose the identity of, or contact details for, individuals who have relevant information if the party does not intend to use that information in support of its case.
Insurance policy
Rule 26 also requires a party to provide “for inspection and copying” any insurance policy under which an insurer may be responsible to satisfy (or reimburse payments made to satisfy) a judgment in a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). The man’s insurance policy qualified for disclosure under this rule because the insurer could be required to pay for the woman’s personal injuries and property damage from the accident. As a result, the man was required to provide the insurance policy to the woman, which he did not do.
Scope of discovery
Information about the man’s eyesight was within the scope of discovery because it was relevant to the woman’s negligence claim. Further, even if the objection at the deposition was proper, the man violated the federal rules by refusing to answer and terminating the deposition because the federal rules provide that a deposition should proceed with the testimony taken subject to any objections. Thus, the court erred in denying the woman’s motion to compel.
Objection
Even if the objection at the deposition was proper, the man violated the federal rules by refusing to answer and terminating the deposition because the federal rules provide that a deposition should proceed with the testimony taken subject to any objections. An objection to deposition testimony “must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). An instruction “not to answer” is proper “only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion [to terminate or limit the deposition].”
Privilege
A deponent may be instructed not to answer “when necessary to preserve a privilege.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Here, information about the man’s eyesight was not privileged. The doctor-patient privilege might protect the man’s doctor from testifying about confidential information provided within that relationship, but the privilege would not protect the man from sharing his own knowledge or standard medical records about his eyesight.
Motion to terminate or limit the deposition
A deponent may also be instructed not to answer in order to “enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion” to terminate or otherwise limit the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). There is no evidence that the court had imposed any limitations on the deposition. Moreover, the man’s attorney did not instruct the man not to answer in order to pursue a motion to terminate the deposition. The man’s attorney never pursued such a motion. Nor would such a motion have been appropriate if the man had pursued it. Such a motion is only appropriate when the deposition “is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3)(A). The man’s attorney claimed simply that the questions concerning the man’s eyesight were irrelevant. The woman’s attorney persisted with the questions but did so properly as objections should be noted and the questions answered. As a result, neither instructing the man not to answer nor terminating the deposition was warranted.]
Motion for Judgment as a matter of law
A motion for judgment as a matter of law in a matter tried before a jury may be granted when two conditions are met: the party against whom the judgment is sought “has been fully heard on an issue” and “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).
Moreover, district courts are encouraged to refrain from granting motions for judgment as a matter of law prior to jury deliberation. See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 405 (2006) (“the district courts are, if anything, encouraged to submit the case to the jury, rather than granting such motions.”); Wright & Miller, 9B Federal Practice and Procedure § 2533 at 517 (“appellate courts repeatedly have said that it usually is desirable to take a verdict, and then pass on the sufficiency of the evidence on a post-verdict motion.”). Consequently, they are more likely to grant a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after the jury has returned its verdict. If the evidence is so one-sided, the jury is likely to rule consistent with the evidence, rendering judgment as a matter of law unnecessary. And if judgment as a matter of law is reversed on appeal because it was improperly granted before submission to the jury, there would be no verdict on which to base a judgment, and a new trial would be necessary. Thus, based on both the law governing judgment as a matter of law and prudential principles, the district court should deny the woman’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
