Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
34 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Prime filed a motion to strike Diamond's jury demand on the ground that Prime's claim was equitable in nature Prime further argued that, while Diamond's counter claim was not equitable but rather constituted an "action at law," a jury trial on the...
|
counterclaim would be improper because it would be tantamount to subjecting Prime to a jury trial on key elements of its equitable claim. A critical common issue between the two claims was the reasonableness of the exclusivity periods and whether they were "anti-competitive." Prime claimed a constitutional right to have this issue decided by the judge in a bench trial since Prime had initiated the lawsuit and its claim was equitable.
|
How should the court rule on Diamond's motion to strike? Discuss the validity and/or legal inaccuracies in the parties' positions. Explain whether and to what extent a jury trial right exists in this case and how the trial should proceed.
|
|
|
TESTIFYING EXPERTS are subject to the automatic disclosure rules of...
|
26(a)(2)...
...their identity must be disclosed to all parties to the lawsuit at least... |
90 days before trial or as otherwise ordered by the court.
|
|
|
In addition, the disclosure must be accompanied by a...
|
WRITTEN REPORT prepared & signed by the expert and containing a...
|
COMPLETE STATEMENT of the expert's
OPINION regarding the case, the BASES thereof, the INFORMATION the expert considered in reaching his opinions,any EXHIBITS that will be used to summarize or support the expert's opinions,the expert's COMPENSATION,and his QUALIFICATIONS including a list of PUBLICATIONS authored by the expert in the previous ten years and a list of ALL OTHER CASES in which the expert testified as an expert during the past FOUR years. |
|
|
Testifying Experts are subject to deposition after...
|
their expert reports are filed pursuant to 26(a)(2)
|
|
|
|
Non-testifying experts are protected from discovery unless...
|
1) the opposing party cannot obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by any other means; or
2) the expert is a treating or examining Health Professional subject to RULE 35(b) |
|
|
|
Based on the above procedural rules, Shady is a testifying expert and must therefore...
|
Be disclosed to Prime pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2).
His expert report must be produced to... |
Prime, and there after, Prime may DEPOSE Shady regarding his work and opinions on the case.
|
|
|
Prime is not entitled to any discovery from e=Edwards, nor may Prime...
|
obtain the market research report performed by Edwards for Diamond.
Moreover, Prime may not take the deposition of Edwards in relation to the work performed for Diamond. (Because) Edward was retained to do work as a... |
non-testifying expert and therefore is no subject to discovery.
|
|
|
Neither of the exceptions permitting discovery apply here. Edward in not a...
|
treating or EXAMINING health professional,
and the facts establish that Prime... |
can obtain facts or opinion on the same subject by other means.
In fact, Prime has hired another market research company in order to obtain exactly that |
|
|
There is no constitutional right to a...
|
BENCH TRIAL with respect to EQUITABLE claims;
the Constitutional right goes only to jury trial, and therefore,.. |
that right must trump Prime's desire for a bench trial on its equitable claim.
|
|
|
The court should try Diamond's counterclaim to a jury first,
and Prime's equitable claim will... |
be tried to the judge afterwards.
Findding of fact made by the jury on issues common... |
to both the claims will be binding on the judge when trying Prime's equitable claim. (3 point)
|
|
|
Finding of fact by the jury on issues of fact COMMON to both the legal
and equitable claims are... |
binding on the judge when deciding the equitable claims. (3 points)
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court has held that when you have a case with mixed legal and equitable claims,...
|
joinder of the equitable claims will NOT DEFEAT the right to a jury trial on the Legal claims.
Instead, all claims triable to a jury are... |
to be tried first,
and then the equitable claims are tried to the Judge afterwards (4 points) |
|
|
Here we have a case with both Equitable claim and "LEGAL" claims.
The Seventh Amendment thus provides a right to... |
a jury trial with respect to legal claims, but...
|
not with respect to the equitable claims. (3 points)
|
|
|
The Seventh Amendment does not provide a right to...
|
a JURY TRIAL in all cases, but only with respect to claims where juries were historically permitted.
Historically, there was a right to jury trial in "actions at law", but not with respect to... |
to EQUITABLE causes of action. (4 points)
|
|
|
Diamond filed a motion for sanctions against Prime base on the loss of the emails. Prime argued that sanctions were inappropriate because (1) most of the emails had been deleted before Primes lawsuit and Diamond's counterclaim had been filed, and thus before any duty to preserve evidence had arisen, and...
|
(2) pursuant FRCP 37(e), sanctions may not be imposed on a party "for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system."
|
How should the court rule on Diamond's motion? Make sure to discuss and explain the concepts of SPOLIATION and the duty preserve evidence in your answer.
|
|
|
The DUTY to preserve evidence arises when...
|
a party reasonably should know that evidence is relevant to existing litigation or...
|
may be relevant to anticipated litigation. (3 points)
|
|
|
Here, the duty to preserve relevant evidence arose not when Prime's lawsuit was filed, as Prime claims, but...
|
on January 3, when Diamond sent Prime and the movie distributors letters claiming that their behavior was unlawful and threatening to file lawsuits against them.
It was a that point... |
Prime should have anticipated litigation with Diamond. (3 points)
|
|
|
SPOLIATION
Spoliation is... |
the destruction or material alteration of evidence,
or... |
the failure to preserve property for another use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.
Spoliation of evidence is sanctionable conduct (4 point) |
|
|
Primes failure to preserve relevant emails after January 3 constitutes...
|
spoliation and justifies the court granting Diamond's...
|
motion for sanctions against Prime.
|
|
|
Prime seeks to avoid sanctions by reliance on FRCP 37(e), which states...
|
that "[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, a court may no impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system."
However, this provision is not designed to allow a party to avoid its... |
preservation obligation with regard to electronically stored information.
|
|
|
The advisory committee notes to the rule expressly state that the term "good faith" presumes...
|
a party's intervention to modify or suspend certain features of that routine operation to prevent the loss of information subject to a preservation obligation.
The good faith requirement means that a party is not permitted to exploit the routine operation of an information system to thwart discovery... |
obligations by allowing the operation to continue destroying information that it is required to preserve. (4 point)
|
|
|
Here, the facts indicate that Prime took no action to preserve electronically stored information prior to the date its lawsuit was filed.
It waited until... |
that time to issue a litigation hold and communicate that hold to information technology personnel
|
|
|
|
In Preparation for filing its lawsuit, Prime's attorney met with several witnesses who were--and still are--employed by the movie distributors with whom Prime had exclusivity periods. These witnesses had participated in negotiating the movie distribution contracts with Prime and were on very friendly terms with Prime. They provided Prime's attorney with statements detailing their involvement in the contract negotiation and preparation.
|
Diamond served a request for production of documents on Prime seeking any and all statements obtained by Prime from persons with discoverable information. Although the statements described in the first paragraph fell within the scope of this request and were clearly relevant to the lawsuit, Prime objected to producing them on the grounds that they were protected by the work product doctrine.
|
Docs Prime's objection have merit?
|
|
|
The product doctrine shields...
|
documents and tangible things from
|
discovery that were prepared by a party or the party's agent in anticipation of litigation--
|
|
|
...unless the opposing party can show (1)...
|
that it has a substantial need for the materials in the preparation of the party's case; and (2)...
|
that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. (5 points)
|
|
|
Here, the statements that Prime secured from the witnesses should be...
|
protected from discovery.
They satisfy the definition of work product and the exception that would permit discovery does not apply. The witnesses are still employed by the movie distributors, and Diamond can simply... |
depose these witnesses in order to obtain the desired information (5 points)
|
|
|
How should the court rule on Prime's motion for summary judgement?
|
Make sure to discuss the burdens that the parties bear with respect to summary judgement as well as the standard for granting summery judgement in your answer.
|
|
|
|
Rule of IRAC
A motion for summery judgement may be granted if there is... |
no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.
In other words, the motion should be granted if no reasonable... |
...if no reasonable jury could, based on the evidence presented, find for the nonmoving party. (4 points)
|
|
|
In considering the evidence presented, the judge may not weigh...
|
...the judge may not weigh the QUALITY of the evidence, or make credibility determinations.
Instead, she must look at the evidence in a light... |
...in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.
|
|
|
To the extent multiple inferences ...
|
...may be drawn from the evidence,
the court must credit -- for purposes of the motion -- those that are most favorable to the non-moving party. (4 points) |
|
|
|
In moving for summary judgement, the MOVING party must satisfy an initial burden of...
|
...establishing a prima facie case for summary judgement.
How the party does this depends on whether the party carries the ultimate... |
...carries the ultimate burden of proof on the issue that is the subject of the summary judgement motion.
|
|
|
If the moving party carries the ultimate burden on the issue, then he must support his motion with...
|
...support his motion with affirmative evidence showing that there is no factual dispute
and that judgement should be awarded in his FAVOR, as a matter of law. If the moving party does not carry the ultimate burden of proof on the issue, then he may satisfy his initial summary judgement burden in one of two ways: |
1) either through affirmative evidence as mentioned above; or
2) by showing that the opposing party LACKS evidence on an essential element of his claim or defense. (3 points) |
|
|
Analysis of IRAC
Here, Prime does not carry the ultimate burden lies with Diamond. Therefore, Prime may satisfy its initial summary judgement burden either by... |
by 1) presenting affirmative evidence showing that THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT; or by
2) showing that Diamond LACTS EVIDENCE ON AN ESSENTIAL Element of its claim. The facts suggest that Prime has done both --Prime has presented affirmative evidence in the form of expert opinions and testimony that the exclusivity is not anti-competitive. It has also alleged that Diamond lacks evidence to prove otherwise. |
Therefore, Prime has satisfied its initial burden on summary judgment. (3 points)
|
|
|
Here, Diamond has responded to the summary judgement motion by producing affirmative evidence refuting Prime's arguments -- namely, the expert report prepared by Shady concluding the exclusivity periods were anti-competitive.
Therefore, the motion for summary judgement must be denied. This is true even though... |
...even though Prime's evidence appears to be much stronger than Diamond's.
The problems raised in the fact pattern with Shady's report go to the credibility of the evidence and the weight that should be accorded to it. Since the judge is not permitted on summary judgement to... |
weigh the credibility of the evidence, but must instead view all evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, he must accept Shady's report as true for purposes of the motion. There is a factual dispute and evidence upon which a reasonable jury could rely to return a verdict for diamond.
Therefore, the issue must be allowed to go to the jury (3 point) |
