The purpose of this note is to generally explain the problems associated with Rule 26(a)(1), and to specifically examine whether it violates the Rules Enabling Act\u27s prohibition on affecting substantive rights. To illustrate the problem with applying Rule 26(a)(1) to all cases, the note will examine mandatory disclosure as it applies to civil rights cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The note concludes that Rule 26(a)(1) infringes on substantive rights in violation of the Rules Enabling Act; however, instead of invalidating the mandatory disclosure rule entirely, federal courts should not apply Rule 26(a)(1) to cases brought under § 1983 against defendant public officials
Recent revisions of rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure removed certain restrictive inte...
The Rules Enabling Act (the REA ) authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of pract...
The 1983 revision of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( Rule 11 or the Rule ) prove...
The purpose of this note is to generally explain the problems associated with Rule 26(a)(1), and to ...
This Note examines the varying interpretations of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro...
On December 1, 2000, several Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. Mandato...
On December 1, 1993, the most comprehensive package of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Proc...
The Supreme Court promulgates rules of procedure (based on the proposals of subordinate rulemaking c...
When the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) were formally adopted by United States Supreme Cour...
When an attorney furnishes documents containing work product to an expert witness, a potential confl...
The doctrine for deciding when to apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to state claims heard i...
This issue includes a notice informing subscribers that Congress took no action on the package of am...
The amendments to the civil rules continue a process of transition from legal formulas toward adapta...
Tension between open discovery practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the adversari...
This Article examines the constitutional and prudential policies underlying the standing requirement...
Recent revisions of rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure removed certain restrictive inte...
The Rules Enabling Act (the REA ) authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of pract...
The 1983 revision of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( Rule 11 or the Rule ) prove...
The purpose of this note is to generally explain the problems associated with Rule 26(a)(1), and to ...
This Note examines the varying interpretations of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro...
On December 1, 2000, several Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. Mandato...
On December 1, 1993, the most comprehensive package of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Proc...
The Supreme Court promulgates rules of procedure (based on the proposals of subordinate rulemaking c...
When the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) were formally adopted by United States Supreme Cour...
When an attorney furnishes documents containing work product to an expert witness, a potential confl...
The doctrine for deciding when to apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to state claims heard i...
This issue includes a notice informing subscribers that Congress took no action on the package of am...
The amendments to the civil rules continue a process of transition from legal formulas toward adapta...
Tension between open discovery practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the adversari...
This Article examines the constitutional and prudential policies underlying the standing requirement...
Recent revisions of rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure removed certain restrictive inte...
The Rules Enabling Act (the REA ) authorizes the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of pract...
The 1983 revision of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( Rule 11 or the Rule ) prove...