Litigation Pitfalls STEWART HARMAN

Similar documents
Trials 101: Civil and Criminal Case Management Essentials, Part 3

Overview. n Discovery-Related Considerations n Scope of Discovery n Typical Types of Fact Discovery n Expert Discovery

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

R in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY

DECISION AND ORDER. This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara,

Case 6:01-cv MV-WPL Document Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

The 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) UNIFORM SCHEDULING ORDER

Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ]

The Codes They Are A Changin

2010 AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Abbott Marie Jones

SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO

2010 Amendments to Expert Witness Discovery Under Federal Rule 26 Address Four Issues:

Being an Expert Witness

TEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Update on 2015 Amendments to the FRCP

Conducting Effective Motion Practice

TAKING AND DEFENDING DEPOSITION September 26, :00-1:00 p.m. Presenter: Thomasina F. Moore, Esq.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET CONTROL ORDER STEP ACTION RULE DATE DUE 1

Arizona s New Civil Rules

CASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:

Litigating in California State Court, but Not a Local? (Part 2) 1

Honorable Todd M. Shaughnessy Erik A. Christiansen Katherine Venti

John H. Tatlock. The Harris Law Firm, P.C.

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION [Required For Bench Trials over two (2) hours]

Corporate Depositions: Limiting In-House Counsel Depos and Selecting/Preparing Employees for 30(b)(6) Depos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT SUPREME COURT TERM, Order Promulgating Amendments to Rules 16.2 and 26 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

Depositions, Interrogatories and Requests for Admission: Using Civil Discovery in TPR Cases

NO. V. AT LAW NO. 1. Defendant(s). ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. FINAL PRETRIAL SUBMISSION (CPS Trial)

Honorable R. Stanton Wettick, Jr. COMPLEX CASES. See Local Rule 249(1).

Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT AMENDMENTS TO THE MAINE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Effective: January 14, 2011

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON CHAPTER I: HEARINGS ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. JANE BOUDREAU, Case No Hon. Victoria A.

Legal Assistant Utilization May Optimize Client Services in Litigation Practice

Motion to Compel ( Defendant s Motion ) and Plaintiff Joseph Lee Gay s ( Plaintiff ) Motion

Discovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Deposition Skills and Strategies (CLE)

INFORMATION FOR COMPLAINANTS

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11

RULE 19 APPEALS TO THE CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE (Effective January 10, 2018; Rule Revision Memo 33D)

RESOLUTION DIGEST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION AVAINE STRONG * CIVIL ACTION NO VERSUS * JUDGE DONALD E.

WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS

Book containing this chapter and any forms referenced herein is available for purchase at or by calling

THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO

Chidi Eze, Esq., an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice law before this Court,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

DISCOVERY- LOCAL RULES JUSTICE COURTS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

There is no single way to create a discovery plan.

Cislo & Thomas LLP Litigation Cost Control (LCC ) Stages of Litigation and Expected Fees and Costs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Third, it should provide for the orderly admission of evidence.

FORM 4. RULE 26(f) REPORT (PATENT CASES) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

TITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SUBTITLE A: EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBCHAPTER n: DISPUTE RESOLUTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO.

Case 9:01-cv MHS-KFG Document 72 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1935

ediscovery Demystified

We will be submitting additional written materials to address the Task Force s other proposals prior to the April meeting of the Board of Governors.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Let s say you are contemplating filing a lawsuit in federal court, or your client unexpectedly gets served

Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls in the Deposition Process

CASE NUMBER: UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION PROPOSED INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

DISCOVERY & E-DISCOVERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NOS.

R U L E S. of the A R M E D S E R V I C E S B O A R D O F C O N T R A C T A P P E A L S

Uniform Arbitration Act; Mediation or Arbitration of Trust Instruments; HB 2571

Neil Feldscher, CIH, CSP, Esq. and Chip Darius, MA, OHST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. v. Case No. 6:13-cv-1839-Orl-40TBS ORDER

Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: 460 Filed: 09/25/15 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 15864

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

HOW TO BE A SUCCESSFUL EXPERT WITNESS

UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

Case: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 01/28/15 1 of 6. PageID #: 284 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Fundamentals of Civil Litigation in Federal Court

Resolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar

Case 9:16-cr RLR Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2017 Page 1 of 6

Pennsylvania Code Rules Rule and

CLEFL1 >' SO. DtT. OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GENERAL ORDER


2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp. AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO

INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS

RULES OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER MEDIATION AND HEARING PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2015

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

California Enacts Deposition Time Limit

2010 FEDERAL RULE AMENDMENTS REGARDING EXPERT WITNESSES

PENNSYLVANIA LOBBYING DISCLOSURE

UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRE-TRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

Transcription:

Litigation Pitfalls STEWART HARMAN

Areas for Discussion u Litigation/Settlement u Educating City Staff, Mayor and City Council u Rules 26 and 37 u Document Retention u Statutory Amendments

Litigation and Settlement u Must educate City Staff, Mayor and Council regarding litigation process, Resolution and/or Trial u Not always about who is right or wrong u Business decision u Necessary to provide a thorough evaluation and analysis to include all potential risk u Take into account any SIR/Deductible u Attorney-client Privilege in Closed Session

Rule 26 General provisions governing disclosure and discovery u Statement of Discovery Issues (Rule 37) u Limitations of discovery u Retained v. Non-retained Experts

Statement of Discovery Issues u The court may enter orders regarding disclosure or discovery or to protect a party or person from discovery being conducted in bad faith or from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to achieve proportionality under Rule 26(b)(2). Utah R. Civ. P. 37(a)(7).

Limitations on Discovery Tier 1 2 3 Amount of Damages Total Fact Deposition Hours Rule 33 Interrogatories including all discrete subparts Rule 34 Requests for Production Rule 36 Requests for Admission Days to Complete Standard Fact Discovery $50,000 or less 3 0 5 5 120 More than $50,000 and less than $300,000 or non-monetary relief 15 10 10 10 180 $300,000 or more 30 20 20 20 210

Retained Expert v. Non-Retained u u (a)(4) Expert testimony. (a)(4)(a) Disclosure of expert testimony. A party shall, without waiting for a discovery request, serve on the other parties the following information regarding any person who may be used at trial to present evidence under Rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence and who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony: (i) the expert s name and qualifications, including a list of all publications authored within the preceding 10 years, and a list of any other cases in which the expert has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years, (ii) a brief summary of the opinions to which the witness is expected to testify, (iii) all data and other information that will be relied upon by the witness in forming those opinions, and (iv) the compensation to be paid for the witness s study and testimony.

Retained Expert v. Non-Retained u (a)(4)(e) Summary of non-retained expert testimony. If a party intends to present evidence at trial under Rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence from any person other than an expert witness who is retained or specially employed to provide testimony in the case or a person whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony, that party must serve on the other parties a written summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify in accordance with the deadlines set forth in paragraph (a)(4)(c). A deposition of such a witness may not exceed four hours.

Application - Non-Retained City Employees u Do we bear the burden of proof on the issue for which expert testimony is offered? u Defendant s do have the burden of proof on some affirmative defenses u Where do City employees fit? u Is the employee retained or specially employed to provide testimony in the case or a person whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony?

Document Retention u Communication u Email (sent and received) u Correspondence (sent and received) u Voicemail/text messages u File Documents u Word Docs, u Scanned Docs u PDFs u Photos

Litigation File u Communication u Email both sent and received u Correspondence sent and received u Voicemail u File Documents u PDF v. modifiable programs u Photos photos of anything that could result in litigation u Witness statements u Copies of Signed Documents/Agreements

Statutory/Rule Amendments u Governmental Immunity Amendments u U.C.A. 63G-7-403 Now includes a 1 year saving Statute u Zemlicka v. West Jordan City u Rule 35 Physical and Mental Examination of Persons u Changes disclosures requirement regarding reports u Clarifies disclosure requirements regarding examiner

Questions? Stewart Harman Municipal Litigation Division Plant, Christensen & Kanell sharman@pckutah.com Direct Line - 801-990-0809