1

Agenda for 6th Class• Admin

– Slide handouts– Name plates out– Office hours Thursday 2-2:45

• Not 2-3PM

• Relation Back• 1995 Exam• Discovery

– Intro & Scope– Depositions– Relevance

• Steffan v Cheney• Davis v Precoat

– Intro to Work Product & Experts

2

Assignment for Next Class I• Work Product

– FRCP 26(b)(3), – Yeazell 487-97, – Writing Assignment for Group 3/ Questions to think about

• Briefly summarize Hickman• What discovery device, if any, did Fortenbaugh use to secure

statements from the survivors?• If petitioner sent the tug owners interrogatories requesting detailed

summaries of any witness statements, would such discovery be barred by the reasoning in Hickman? Would it be barred by FRCP 26(b)(3).

• PP. 495ff Q1, 3, 4b-d, 5– Optional

• Glannon 413-15, 419-20, 429-32

3

Assignment for Next Class II• Experts

– FRCP 26(a)(2), (b)(4), (c)(1)– Yeazell 497-503– Questions we will discuss in class / writing assignment for Group 4

• Briefly summarize Thompson and Chiquita– Incorporate into your summaries of Thompson and Chiquita

answers to p. 502 question 1• 499ff Qs 1-4; 502ff Qs 2-3. Note that 503 Q3 should refer to 26(b)(4)

(B), not 26(a)(2)(B).• How would you argue that Chiquita was wrongly decided as a matter

of textual interpretation and/or policy?• Suppose plaintiff has lung cancer which he thinks might have been

caused by exposure to asbestos. Plaintiff’s lawyer has a doctor extract 10 lung samples, which she then sends to 10 pathologists. 9 say the lung cancer was caused by smoking, but the 10th says it was caused by asbestos. The lawyer discloses the 10th pathologist as one who will testify at trial, but says nothing about the other 9 to the defendant. Can defendant’s lawyer find out that plaintiff consulted 10 pathologists? Can she find out their identities? Can she depose the other 9? Why is this important?

– Optional. Glannon 415-17, 420-21, 432-34

4

Last Class• Answer

– Answer must admit or deny with specificity• Supposed to be helpful to plaintiff • Supposed to distinguish between issues that need factual

investigation and those which don’t– Defendants often get away with denying or saying they lack knowledge

about issues they should admit• But judges can and sometimes do react negatively

– Especially when consequences for plaintiff are severe. PPI• Amendment

– Usually granted, because advances policy of resolving cases on merits– 3 factors

• Timing• Bad faith• prejudice

5

Relation Back• Relevant only if statute of limitations has run out• 15(c)(1)(B). If not changing the party– Relation back if same transaction or occurrence• 15(c)(1)(c). If changing party– 3 part test

• Same transaction or occurrence• Within 120 days of filing of complaint (plus extensions), defendant

had actual notice of lawsuit (even if did not receive service of process)

• Within 120 days of filing of complaint (plus extensions), defendant knew or should have known that plaintiff made a mistake about identity of proper defendant

6

Relation Back• Technically

– Amendment issue should be resolved first– If Amendment allowed and statute of limitations has run out, then

defendant should make motion for summary judgment based on statute of limitations

– Plaintiff should raise relation back in response to summary judgment motion

• In practice– Defendant opposes amendment by arguing that statute of limitations has

run out and that relation back does not apply– Judge denies amendment if statute of limitations has run out and relation

back does not apply• “justice does not require” amendment if statute of limitations has run

out• Waste of time to allow amendment if defendant can bring successful

summary judgment motion based on statute of limitations

7

Relation Back Questions• Summarize Moore v Baker

• Summarize Bonerb v Caron Foundation

• Yeazell p. 454ff Qs 4c, 5b

8

1995 Exam Q1

9

Discovery• Biggest innovation of 20th century procedure• Costs and benefits

– Enormously expensive, time consuming, intrusive– Improves accuracy and thus enhances justice, Promotes settlement

• Main methods– Depositions, requests for documents (including emails)

• Largely unsupervised– Lawyers make requests directly to opposing counsel

• Judge’s permission not generally required– Lawyers respond directly to opposing counsel

• Judge does not ordinarily see– Lawyers can bring problems to judge’s attention

– Motions to compel, motions to protect, motions for sanctions– But judges don’t like to be involved– Often magistrate judges handle

• Discovery does not preclude other means of investigation

10

Discovery: Scope• FRCP 26(b)(1). Any non-privileged matter relevant to claim or defense• Privileges – attorney-client, doctor-patient, self-incrimination• Relevance – Information is relevant if it helps prove or disprove a claim or

defense– Need not be determinative

• Hit and run accident. Plaintiff says offending car was yellow. Fact that defendant owns yellow car is relevant

– Sufficient that reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence• Limitations

– Proportionality. 26(b)(1)• Amount at stake, relative access to info, resources, importance to

merits, burden/expense versus benefit– Privilege. 26(b)(1)– Special rules for work product and experts. 26(b)(3), (b)(4). Next class– Annoying, embarrassing, oppressive. 26(c)(1)– Court may issue protective order. 26(c)(1)

11

Discovery: Depositions• Much like oral testimony at trial

– Deponent sworn, opposing counsel present, court reporter transcribes– Lawyer asks questions, deponent must answer– No judge

• Only depose witnesses controlled by or friendly to opposing side– Don’t need discovery to get info from own side or friendly witnesses– Deposition is expensive and other lawyer present

• Only supposed to instruct deponent not to answer for 3 reasons. FRCP 30(c)(2)– To protect privilege– To enforce court ordered limitation discovery– To made motion to court under FRCP 30(d)(3)– Otherwise, can object to question (e.g. irrelevant, hearsay,

embarrassing, duplicative), but deponent must answer• But if question is really improper, is opposing side likely to complain

to judge?

12

Questions on Discovery• Briefly summarize Davis v Precoat Metals and Stefan v Cheney• Pp. 463ff. Q1-4• Pp. 488ff Q1

Questions on Discovery– Suppose a woman sues her employer claiming a hostile environment,

because her supervisor pressured female employees to sleep with him, either through promises of promotion or favorable treatment at work, or through threats of adverse job action. Note that if the supervisor slept with female employees consensually without pressure or work-related incentives, that would not be evidence of a hostile work environment. In answering the following questions, consider arguments you can make based on FRCP 26(b)(1), (b)(2), or (c). Think of arguments for both sides.

– May the plaintiff’s attorney depose other female workers at the same job site and ask them if they slept with the supervisor?

– May the plaintiff’s attorney depose other female workers at the same job site and ask them to list all the people they had slept with in the last five years?

– Can you think of a question more directly targeted at uncovering evidence of a hostile environment? If so, is the plaintiff’s attorney required to ask this more targeted question?

13

14

Work Product• Work Product 26(b)(3)

– No discovery of “documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial … [unless] substantial need”

– Designed to protect lawyers notes from discovery• But maybe broader?

15

3 Kinds of Experts• Expert who will testify at 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