Civ. Pro. Intro.Procedural Systems Adversarial (American) Approach to Lawo Facts and case presented as parties wish them to beo Passive court involvement Aids in overcoming possible adudicator bias A!!irms individuality Correlation b"t lac# o! adversarial system and increase in governmental repression In$uisitorial (%uropean) Approacho &udge as#s the $uestionso Parties have minimal role in deciding what is presented and what is not. 'iminishes problem o! ine$uality in representation Less danger o! discovery abuse when discovery is per!ormed by udgeCourt Structures State Courto (rial Court (general )* but limited by International Shoe)o 'istrict Courts o! Appeals (i! trial court appealed* mandatory hearing)o State Supreme Court (S. Ct. has option o! granting +certeriori,) Federal Courto 'istrict (rial Courts (limited )* subect to --.//.* .//0 primarily)o Circuit Courts o! Appeals (i! trial court appealed* mandatory hearing)o 1.S. Supreme Court (option o! granting +certeriori,) 2oth can hear state court issues (i! other re$uirements !ul!illed at F.Ct.) 2oth can hear Federal 3uestion Issues (as long as 4 does not as# toremove to F. Ct.)Complaint 5ule 6o brie! statement o! S7)o brie! statement o! claim Twombly and Iqbal 8 plead !actual (non conclusory) details plausible claimo demand !or relie!o contradictory claims allowedo contingent claims allowedo alternative claims allowed 5ule 9o Purpose o! Service Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Fair notice provides 4 opportunity to be heard 'ue Processo :ow to serveo Alternative available i! necessary (Rio Properties In.)o ;aiver o! service (ime to !ile answer e)tended does not waive .0(b) obections5esponsive Pleadings 5ule 6 Answer to Complainto Admit or deny allegations (!in" #ision Pay Per #iew$ %t&. v. '.C. (imitri)s Restaurant)o Short* clear statement o! de!enseso A!!irmative de!ense 8 6(c) is partial list< accord and satis!action= arbitration and award= assumption o! ris#= contributory negligence= duress= estoppel= !ailure o! consideration= !raud= illegality= inury by !ellow servant= laches= license= payment= release= res udicata= statute o! !rauds= statute o! limitations= and waiver .0(b) 7otion to dismiss.. Lac# o! S7)0. Lac# o! P)/. Improper >enue9. Insu!!icient process?. Insu!!icient service o! process@. Failure to state a claim upon which relie! can be grantedA. Failure to oin parties under 5ule .Bo 0C? waived i! not brought up in a single motion be!ore the Answero .0(e) 7otion !or a 7ore 'e!inite StatementAmendments 5ule .? (a) 2e!ore trialo Dne amendment as a matter o! course 0. days a!ter !iled= or 0. days a!ter answer to or motion to dismiss pleading is!iledo In all other cases a party may amend with stipulation !rom opposing counsel or on motion !or leave to amend. (c) 5elation bac# (Tran v. *lphonse Hotel Corp.)o Dnly needed a!ter Statute o! Limitations has runo As state statute provideso Assert a claim or de!ense that arose out o! the same conduct*transaction or occurrence as set out in the original pleading 4 on !air noticeE 4 surprised by new allegationsEo Change or rename a party i! party #new about complain and #new or should have #nown about mista#e5ule .. Applies to all things !iled with court e)cept discovery %verything !iled by attorney can result in sanctions i! it is untruth!ulo Dn motion by another party* much higher standard (reasonableness o! document)o I! sua sponte (courtFs own motion) then must be !iled in bad !aith !or sanctions to be issued I! on motion o! party there is a 0. day period to withdraw or amenda !iling5ules 0@< General Provisions 5e< 'isclosureo (a) 7andatory disclosures witnesses to support a!!irmative claims documents to support a!!irmative claims insurance in!ormation e)pert witness disclosureso (b) Scope and limits (9) EXPERTS. (C) communications between testi!ying e)pert and attorney protected e)cept to the e)tent that communications< (i) relate compensation !or study or testimony (ii) identi!y !acts or data that partyFs attorney provided and the e)pert considered in !orming theopinions to be e)pressed= or (iii) identi!y assuptions that the partyFs attFy provided and that e)pert relied on in !orming the opinions to be e)pressed.o (e) Supplementing disclosures i! disclosure becomes #nown to be !alse* must supplement i! mandatory disclosure stu!! changes then must supplemento (!) Con!erence o! the Parties< Planning !or 'iscovery party created time line must occur as soon as possible* and be!ore all other discovery 0A< 'epositions w"o trial pending 06< 'eposition procedure generally 0B< Stipulations /H< Dral 'epositions procedure /.< ;ritten 'epositions /0< 1sing 'epos in Court //< Interrogatories /9< Producing 'ocuments* %ntering Land !or Inspection /?< 7ental"Physical %)ams /@< 5e$uests !or Admission /A< Failure to disclose= Sanctions 9?< Subpoenas (upon /d parties)7echanics 'eposition Interrogatories 5e$uests !or Production"Inspection Independent 7ental"Physical %)am 5e$uests !or Admission Subpoena to nonCparties to obtain in!ormationLimitations 5elevance (See Sanyo %aser Pro&uts$ In. v. *rista Reor&s$ In.)o +to any partyFs claim or de!ense,o used to be !ar more broad Accessibility o! 'igital In!ormation (See +.,. *ubuhon Co. v. Bene-irst$ %%C)o ? levels o! accessibility (.C/ generally deemed accessible* 9C? inaccessible).. active onCline data (hard drives)0. nearCline data (robotic storage"optical dis#s)/. o!!line storage"archives (removable optical dis#s which can be stored on shelves)9. bac#up drives (not organiIed !or retrieval o! individual documents"!iles)?. erased* !ragmented or damaged datao %ven i! inaccessible* court may order production i! good cause!or in!ormation shown (nonCe)clusive list o! A considerations).. speci!icity o! the discovery re$uest0. $uantity o! in!ormation available !rom other and more easily accessed sources/. !ailure to produce relevant in!ormation that seems li#elyto have e)isted but is no longer available on more easilyaccessed sources9. li#elihood o! !inding relevant* responsive in!o that cannot be obtained !rom other sources?. predictions as to importance and use!ulness o! the !urther in!ormation@. broader importance o! issue at sta#eA. partiesF respective resourceso i! good cause !ound* court may order production (and may split costs between parties however court sees !it)o Considerations in splitting costs (.ubulake v. /BS +arbur")enue 8 .0(b)(/) 8 Piper *irra-t v. Reyno -.//0o where any 4 resides i! all 4s in same stateo damages occurredo IF LD( (.) or (0)* where any 4 is subect to P) -.//.o (.) and (0) !rom aboveo IF LD( (.) or (0)* where any 4 may be !ound (rans!ero to place where suit could have been originally !iledo convenient !or parties* witnesses* evidenceo courtFs discretion 5emoval All 4s agree to removeE (ignore !or Class Actions) would Fed. Ct. in district have original )E Forum 4 ruleU 8 Spener 8 (only at time o! removal) motion within /H days o! being removableE motion within . year o! suit !iledE Anything ;aivedE P) >enue Process Service o! Process Hansberry 8 reason !or rule 0/ A 8 all o! these de!inable class rep. is member o! class L 8 oinder impracticable* C 8 common $uestions o! law"!act* ( 8 claims o! rep. typical o! class* and A 8 rep !airly and ade$uately rep the class 2 8 at least one o! these separate suits would beo un!air to 4 (multiple"contradictory rulings to di!!. Ks)o un!air to K (indivisible interest"protected right) harm applies generally to whole class (inunctive"declaratory) opt out classo predominateo superior (Haley v. Me&troni$ In.) individual interests in control= onCgoing litigation involving matter and members= desirable to concentrate litigations in !orum= and di!!iculties in management CAFA C -.//0(d) Fed. &) over Class Act. i!