Agenda for 9th Class

Agenda for 9th Class • Admin • Handouts • Name plates • Sanctions • Phillips • A Civil Action • Introduction to Summary Judgment

Next Class I • FRCP 56 • Yeazell pp. 569-79 (Celotex) • Questions to think about • Briefly summarize Celotex. Be sure to discuss what evidence each side submitted to the court and incorporate an answer to Yeazell p. 577 Q1c into your answer. (WG7) • Yeazell pp. 577 Q2c (WG6) • Does the Supreme Court’s ruling mean that defendant is entitled to summary judgment in this case? If your answer is “yes,” explain why. If your answer is “no,” explain why not. (WG5) • In Celotex, what could the plaintiff’s lawyer have done during discovery to have had a better chance of defeating defendant’s motion for summary judgment? What, if anything, could plaintiff’s lawyer do after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in order to win the case for plaintiff? (WG4)

Next Class II • Yeazell pp. 583-88 (Bias) • Questions to think about • Briefly summarize Bias. Be sure to discuss what evidence each side submitted to the court? Why did the court grant summary judgment to the defendant? (WG4) • In Bias, is it possible that the plaintiff would have prevailed at trial? How? If your answer is “yes,” why wasn’t he able to defeat the summary judgment motion? (WG3) • If you were the plaintiff’s lawyer in Bias, what could you have done that might have helped you defeat summary judgment? (WG1) • Optional Glannon Ch 23

Work Product I • Work Product 26(b)(3) • No discovery of “documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial … [unless] substantial need” • Policies • Not to discourage writing • To encourage each side to expend effort gathering evidence • Adversary system • Somewhat in tension with policies behind discovery • Rule is narrower than policies behind doctrine • Restricted to “documents and tangible things.” • But rule is interpreted to cover more than documents and tangible things • Textualist v purposivist interpretation of rules • Most judges interpret rules in purposivist way • Doctrine was created before rule

Work Product II • Structure of rule • Relevant, non-privileged information is discoverable. Rule 26(b)(1) • Unless prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. • If so, then it is work product and protected by Rule 26(b)(3)(A) • Unless opposing party shows substantial need. • If so, then it is discoverable under Rule 26(b)(3)(A)(ii) • So “substantial need” is an exception to an exception. • If work product is ordered to be produced under Rule 26(b)(3)(A)(ii) (“substantial need”) • Then court must protect against disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal theories etc. Rule 26(b)(B) • So “mental impressions” is an exception to an exception to an exception

3 Kinds of Experts Expert who will testify at trial, hired in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial Heightened discovery FRCP 26(a)(2)(A). Disclosure of name of testifying expert FRCP 26(a)(2)(B). Testifying expert must prepare report and report must be disclosed FRCP 26(b)(4)(A). Opposing party may depose testifying expert Non-testifying expert, hired in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial Treated like other work product FRCP 26(b)(4)(D). Non-testifying expert, hired in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial, is shielded from discovery Unless “exceptional circumstances” 26(b)(4)(D)(ii) Experts not hired in anticipation of trial Subject to discovery like ordinary witnesses E.g. engineer who designed product which may be defective; doctor who examined patient for treatment (not for litigation purposes) Disclosure of facts and opinions, 26(a)(2)(D) But not as extensive disclosure as required of testifying experts 6

Discovery Sanctions I • Rule 11 does not apply to discovery. See 11(d) • FRCP 26(g). Very similar to Rule 11, except applies to written aspects of discovery • Discovery requests, responses, or objections must be signed by lawyer • Disclosure is complete • Requests, responses, or objections are warranted by law or non-frivolous argument to change the law, not for improper purpose, not unreasonable or unduly burdensome • Sanctions are mandatory. May include fees to opposing counsel • FRCP 30(c)-(d). Depositions • In general there are two sets of lawyers in a deposition • Lawyer taking the deposition • Lawyer defending the deposition • Lawyers can object in deposition, but can only instruct deponent not to answer “when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion to the court.” 30(c)(2)

Discovery Sanctions II • Depositions (continued) • 30(d)(2). Sanctions on person who “impedes, delays, or frustrates” deposition • 30(d)(3). May terminate or suspend deposition to make motion to judge to limit deposition • FRCP 37(a) motion to compel • If opposing party refuses requested discovery • If granted, court must award attorneys fees • FRCP 37(b). Discretionary sanctions for failure to obey court order • Can be severe, including dismissal, default judgment, or contempt (imprisonment)

Discovery Sanctions III • Lots of other sanctions provisions • 37(c) Sanction for failure to disclose, supplement, or admit • Does not apply to depositions • 37(d) failure to respond to discovery requests • Failure to attend deposition • Failure to respond at all to interrogatories • Failure to respond at all to request for documents or tangible things • 26(g) wouldn’t apply because no paper to sign

Questions on Sanctions • Yeazell p. 509-10 Q. 2 • 1) In Phillips v Manufacturers Hanover Trust, what rule, if any, did defendant’s counsel violate? Be sure to consider FRCP 11, 26(g), 30(c),30(d), 37(a)(4), 37(b) and 37(d) and explain why each rule was or was not violated. Note that the Rules have been amended several times since 1994, so the reasoning in the opinion may no longer be valid. • 2) For each rule that you think the defendant’s lawyer violated, what is the sanction? Are sanctions mandatory or discretionary? • 3) Did the magistrate judge make the right decision in Phillips v Manufacturers Hanover Trust? If you were a law clerk to Judge Francis what would you have advised him to do? • 4) What, if anything, should the plaintiff’s lawyer in Phillips v Manufacturers Hanover Trust have done differently? • 5) If the plaintiff’s lawyer asked the district court judge to review the magistrate judge’s decision, is the district court judge likely to affirm the magistrate judge’s decision

Questions on A Civil Action • Explain how Schlichtmann got information to build his case. What discovery devices did he use? What methods other than discovery did Schlichtman use to get information? • Explain what happened on pp. 162-65. Why did Cheeseman and Frederico object when Schlichtmann asked Love whether he was concerned when he found out that the wells were contaminated? Why didn’t they instruct Love not to answer? Why did Schlictmann ask these questions? • Explain what happened at “the woodshed”? What rules had Schlichtmann violated which led to the woodshed? Why does Shlichtmann say he’s “sorry Judge Skinner wasn’t a party to the agreement“? (pp. 222 & 226) What sanction(s) did the judge impose? Why was the woodshed so important? • If you were Schlichtman, how would you have handled the settlement negotiation with Facher differently? (pp. 228-31). Why do you think Schlichtman acted as he did?

Summary Judgment I Sometimes facts revealed in discovery are so clear that trial is pointless Judge renders judgment without trial Very serious because Deprives losing party of jury trial Deprives losing party of ability to fully present case Mechanics Party that wants summary judgment makes motion Memorandum in support of motion attaches evidence documents, excerpts from depositions, affiidavits/declarations… Affidavit or declaration is statement by friendly witness Memorandum argues that materials show no real factual issue Memorandum argues that law on movant’s side Party opposing summary judgment submits memorandum in opposition Attaches and discusses evidence showing that there is a factual issue that requires full trial Argues that law on non-movant’s side 12

Summary Judgment II Legal Standard “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” “movant” = person making SJ motion (usually defendant) Undisputed facts show that moving party prevails Moving party prevails if no reasonable juror could find for non-moving party Non-moving party is party opposing motion (usually plaintiff) 13

Summary Judgment III Judge is not supposed to determine witness credibility No live witnesses, but affidavits and deposition transcripts Must believe non-moving party’s witnesses Need not believe moving party’s witnesses In theory, non-moving party could prevail by showing the moving party’s witnesses are not credible (just as could at trial) But that is rare. Hard to challenge credibility at SJ. Judges usually believe moving party’s witnesses, unless non-moving party can produce witnesses to contradict them Summary judgment forces parties to do thorough discovery Must depose witnesses etc., so have information to make or oppose SJ Evidence used in support or opposition to SJ must be admissible at trial No live witnesses at SJ so, if party would use live witness at trial Must use deposition transcript or affidavit/declaration Which are not usually admissible at trial, because hearsay What said by deponent/affiant/declarant must be admissible, if that person were witness at trial 14

Agenda for 9th Class