Civil Procedure I Outline

Outline Civil Procedure
 
 
I. An intro to the procedural system
A. Where can the case be brought
B. Getting the case started
1. The complaint
·Topic Notes:
Complaint: PL’s description of the dispute
 
Lewis v. U.S. Slicing Machine Co. (1970)
·Case Brief:
Style (name of case): Lewis v. U.S. Slicing Machine Co. (1970), U.S. District Ct., Western District of PA
 
Cause of action: The following is a diversity action for negligence, breach of implied warranties or merchantability and fitness.   
 
Procedural History: Matter before the court is a motion to dismiss the charge under Fed. Rule 12, alleging the complaint does not comply or has not been drawn consistent with rule 8(a)(2)
 
Facts: Minor PL allegedly hurt himself while cleaning a meat slicer. 
 
Issue(s): Assuming all facts are true, does the complaint set forth a cause of action?
 
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: The court finds this is simply a “notice pleading.” Thus, any other information DF wishes to gather could and should be done during the discovery process. Any other means of trying to disprove a case should come after PL gets a chance to prove its allegations.
 
Rule: The function of a complaint under the Fed. Rules of Civ. Pro is to afford fair notice to the adversary of the nature and basis of the claim asserted and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.
 
Holding: Yes. The allegations in the cause of action are not so indefinite so as to deny DF notice of the nature of the claim against it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. The answer – pre-answer motions
·Topic Notes:
Rules 8(b) and 8(c) refer to this process where DF must respond to allegation(s) in the complaint. 3 types of answers:
1. Deny/admit what PL said (rule 8b & d)
2. DF may allege an affirmative defense, or additional reasons that, even if the original complaint were true, there would still be no way to recover.
3. DF may have counterclaims against the PL.
 
C. Obtaining Information About the Case
·Topic Notes:
·Private investigation
·interviewing witnesses
·expert interviews
·internet research
· 
Pre-trial discovery: the ability of one party to a lawsuit to compel both parties and nonparty witnesses to provide information about the case, whether or not (rules 26-37)
 
Major discovery devices are as follows:
·depositions: oral questions by a lawyer & answers by the witness (trial w/o the judge) – rule 30, 45
·interrogatories: written questions to a party answered in writing – rule 33
·documents and inspection of land: requests to produce documents, permit inspection or testing of products & land – rule 34, 45
·physical and mental examinations: available only as against a party, and only with court permission – rule 35
·
Coleman v. American Red Cross (1994)
·Case Brief:
Style (name of case): Coleman v. American Red Cross, U.S. Ct./Appeals, 6th Circuit (1994)
 
Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for reversal of a motion to deny discovery on PL’s part in its suit against DF, who was allegedly negligent in its causing the alleged infection of PL with HIV, and subsequently AIDS via blood transfusion.
 
Procedural History: Colemans filed negligence action vs. DF. During discovery, Colemans requested donor’s name and address, DF refused to provide, but district court originally ordered DF to provide such information. When they gave donor card copies to PL, one had a social security number on it, and when PL’s attempted to use it, DF moved it be prevented from doing so. Court ordered PL to return any names/addresses they found from this search.
 
Colemans appealed, arguing DC was wrong not to let them sue the donor. This court agreed. When remanded back to DC again, DF filed 41b motion to dismiss, which was granted, and then PL appealed the dismissal.
 
Facts: PL got HIV then AIDS from an unknown donor through the alleged negligence of DF. PL files discovery motion to obtain the name of the donor to see if they had HIV, so they could connect their negligence claim, but were denied. 
 
Issue(s): Under federal rules of Civ. Pro, was there an abuse of discretion by the lower court in refusing to deny PL’s discovery motion? Which standard should be used for discovery: admissibility or relevance?
 
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: Any kind of evidence, hearsay or not, is permitted in this discovery process, b/c above all else it will help the court decide the truth in this case (discovery of admissible evidence).
 
Rule: A court is not permitted to preclude the discovery of arguably important/relevant information solely b/c if the information were introduced at trial, it would be “speculative at best.
 
Also see rules 37b and 41b.
 
Holding: The court rules it was an abuse of discretion to deny PL motion for reversal of precluded information from discovery, as there was at least relevant information, but does not find any abuse in its discretion in refusing to grant the original request (was too burdensome and expensive).
 
Dissenting: Ryan believes the court should have never analyzed the case based on rules 41b and 37b only, for they do not address the sanctions the PL’s attorney should have received for blatantly violating the court order not to divulge the name of the donor who dies.
 
D. Pretrial procedures
·Topic Notes:
Four stages of the litigation process: pleading, discovery, pretrial and trial
Pretrial conferences: rule 16; discuss length of trial, issues contended and not contended, numbers of witnesses & evidence
Final pretrial order supercedes the pleadings and govern the course of the trial
 
Pryor v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather and Geraldson (2000)
·Case Brief:
Style (name of case): Pryor v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, U.S. Ct./Appeals, 7th Circuit(2000)
 
Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for appeal from dismissal of suit, on motion for summary judgment for sexual harassment, and for retaliation for complaining about it.
 
Procedural History: Lower court dismissed both the harassment and retaliation suits vs. DF.
 
Facts: PL moves for both complaints to be reinstated on the basis of five separate incidents which she says were harassment. PL adds that just three months after the complaint was filed, she was fired for something which would normally not result in a firing. She contends DF fired her out of retaliation. DF insists there was no harassment or firing linked to the initial complaint instituted by PL.
 
Issue(s): Under federal rules of civil procedure, is there enough information based on five separate incidents to restore