JUDICATURETHE SCHOLARLY JOURNAL FOR JUDGES
VOLUME 100 NUMBER 4 WINTER 2016
STEA
DY AS SHE GOES
Duke’s Revised
Guidelinesand Practices
chart the course to
proportionalityalso:
HOW COURT FEES AND FINES CAN UNDERMINE PUBLIC TRUST –
AND WHAT JUDGES CAN DO ABOUT IT
Published by the Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies
IN HIS 2015 END-OF-THE-YEAR REPORT, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS EXHORTED the “entire legal community, including the bench, bar, and legal academy, [to] step up to the challenge of making real change” and embrace the discovery proportionality rule amendments. Instead of wasting time and money demarcating the maximum limits of conceivably relevant discoverable information at the start of litigation, the amended rules aim at “focus[ing] discovery . . . on what is truly necessary to resolve the case.” Have the bench and bar heeded the Chief Justice’s exhortations since the amendments took effect 11 months ago?
It appears so, or at least that is the impression from the 17-city discovery proportion- ality roadshow programs held before 2,500 lawyers and judges. Follow-up informal discussions have only strengthened the growing evidence that the bench and bar are indeed
paying serious attention in reaching reasonable discovery. Reported case law, as reflected in the annotated Discovery Proportionality Guidelines and Practices (available on the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies website) also manifests judges’ willingness to comply not only with the letter but also the spirit of the amendments.
AND YET NO ONE IS DECLARING VICTORY. For one thing, experience has shown that it takes five to ten
years before all practitioners and even all judges become aware of and familiar with new rule amendments. The discovery amendments are no exception.
Take, for example, the continuing bench-bar knee-jerk reaction, defining the scope of permissible discovery to reach any information that is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” The phrase was misleading, caused confusion, and was deliberately deleted from the rule. The Committee Notes could not be clearer: “The former provision for discovery of relevant but inadmissible information that appears ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ is also deleted. The phrase has been used by some, incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery. As the Committee Note to the 2000 amendments observed, use of the ‘reasonably calculated’ phrase to define the scope of discovery ‘might swallow any other limitation on the scope of discovery.’”
Notwithstanding the amendment’s clear intent, more than 20 reported cases, with at least one in every circuit, have favorably cited the deleted phrase. With only a few exceptions, however, these decisions merely reference the phrase almost in passing, e.g., “discoverable information is [an] item that is ‘relevant or may lead to the discovery of relevant information.’”1 Ten reported cases got it right and go in greater detail, explaining the dele-tion and rejecting reliance on a pre-amendment Supreme Court decision as authority for the contrary proposition.2
Only time will tell whether the persistent judicial invocations of “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence” represent only reflexive, unthinking remarks, or whether they reflect an entrenched, institutional intransigence that will stymie the Chief Justice’s “chal-lenge of making real change.”
John K. RabiejDirector, Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies
Published by the Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies
DIRECTOR
John K. Rabiej
ACADEMIC DIRECTORS
Jack Knight Frederic Cleaveland Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University
Mitu Gulati Professor of Law, Duke University
Margaret H. Lemos Robert G. Seaks LLB’34 Professor of Law,
Duke University
CENTER BOARD
Carolyn Kuhl Judge, Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles
John W. Lungstrum Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas
Lee H. Rosenthal Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
John R. Tunheim Chief Judge, U.S. District Court,
District of Minnesota
David F. Levi Dean and Professor of Law,
Duke University School of Law
MANAGING EDITORMelinda Myers Vaughn
CENTER COORDINATORAnn M. Yandian
Editorial AssistantsLeah Brenner, Lora Beth Farmer,
Zachary Newkirk
JUDICATUREVOLUME 100, NUMBER 4
ISSN 0022-5800 © 2016 Duke University School of Law.
All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced without written permission
from Duke University. Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Duke Law School
as an entity or of its faculty.
Requests for reprints may be sent to: Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies
210 Science Drive | Box 90362 Durham, NC 27708-0362
Phone: 919-613-7073 | Fax: 919-613-7158 Email: [email protected]
AS I SEE IT
1 (See Endnote 4, annotated Discovery Proportionality Guidelines and Practices – https://law.duke.edu/judicialstudies/confer-
ences/publications/.) 2 See Cole’s Wexford Hotel, Inc. v. Highmark Inc., 2016 WL 5025751, at *10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2016) (noting that reliance on Oppenheimer Fund Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) is misplaced); see also In re: Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liability Litig., 2016 WL 4943393, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2016) (“Despite this clear change, many courts continue to use the phrase. Old habits die hard.” Campbell, J., chair of Advisory Committee on Civil Rules at time of rule amendment promulgation).
The Duke Law Center for
Judicial Studies updates the
Discovery Proportionality
Guidelines and Practices each
month with annotations to
new caselaw. Find the latest
document at law.duke.edu/judicialstudies/conferences/publications.
ALTEC, INC.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP.
CRAWFORD & CO.
EXXON MOBIL
GARRETSON RESOLUTION GROUP
GE’S POWER AND WATER
GLAXOSMITHKLINE
HOME DEPOT
MERCK & CO.
MICROSOFT
PFIZER, INC.
STATE FARM INSURANCE CO.
Thank you TO OUR GENEROUS SPONSORS
JUDICATURE
SILVER SPONSORS
GARRETSON RESOLUTION GROUP
DAVID ICHELDaviD W. ichel Dispute Resolution
ADAM MOSKOWITZKozyaK tRopin & thRocKmoRton llp
BRONZE SPONSOR
OSBORN MALEDON, PA
WE NEED YOU.SPONSORS MAKE Judicature POSSIBLE.
Duke Law School relies on sponsorships to support the
cost of Judicature’s production and subscriptions for
judges. We can’t do it without your help! Please
consider supporting Judicature and the service it
provides to the judiciary and the legal profession.
We offer four levels of sponsorship: Founding Member
($25,000); Gold ($10,000); Silver ($5,000); and Bronze
($2,500). Email us at [email protected] or visit
law.duke.edu/judicature for complete details on
sponsorship benefits and opportunities.
Thank you!
FREDERICK BAKER motley Rice llc
JOHN BEISNER sKaDDen aRps slate meagheR
& Flom llp
SHEILA BIRNBAUMQuinn emanuel uRQuhaRt
& sullivan llp
ELIZABETH CABRASERlieFF cabRaseR heimann
& beRnstein llp
DANIEL GIRARDgiRaRD gibbs llp
MARK FILIP KiRKlanD & ellis llp
ROBERT HEIM DecheRt llp
KIMBERLY A. JUSTICEKessleR topaz meltzeR checK llp
ADAM LEVITT gRant & eisenhoFeR pa
ADAM MOSKOWITZ KozyaK tRopin & thRocKmoRton llp
PETER PRIETO poDhuRst oRsecK pa
CHRISTOPHER SEEGER seegeR Weiss llp
LEN SIMON Robbins gelleR RuDman
& DoWD llp
CHILTON VARNER King & spalDing llp
PHILLIP WITTMANNstone pigman WaltheR
& Wittmann llc
DUKE LAW CENTER FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES
THE DUKE CONFERENCES
FOUNDING SPONSORGARDEN CITY GROUP
GOLD SPONSORSANKURA CONSULTING GROUP
BAYER CORP.
SILVER SPONSORS (CORPORATE)
SILVER SPONSORS (INDIVIDUAL)
JUDICATURECenter for Judicial Studies Duke University School of Law210 Science Drive | Box 90362Durham, North Carolina 27708-0362
Return Service Requested
NONPROFIT ORG.US Postage
PAID
Durham, NCPermit #60
four weeks of coursework on campus
in two consecutive summers
highly interactive courses taught by Duke Law faculty and other top scholars
curriculum examines judicial institutions, judicial behavior, and decision-making
full scholarships for tuition, room, and board offered to all accepted applicants
THE DUKE LAW MASTER OF JUDICIAL STUDIES DEGREE
[ for state, federal, and international judges ]
CA L L F O R A P P L I CAT I O N S
Duke Law is currently
accepting applications
for its 2018 entering class of
the Master of Judicial Studies
LLM degree program.
[ ][ ][ ]
[ ]
Details and application information available at WWW.LAW.DUKE.EDU/JUDICIALSTUDIES/DEGREE.
Top Related