1,720,969 research outputs found
Beyond Congress\u27s Reach: Constitutional Aspects of Inherent Power
Get PDFThis article examines Article III judicial power and other independent court powers implied by Article III’s grand of judicial power along with the limits on Congress’s power to tamper with them. The author proposes that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), as interpreted by some lower courts, impermissibly interferes with the traditionally inherent power to vacate judgments for fraud on the court
E-Discovery: Direct Access of Electronic Devices After In re Marion Shipman
No full textProvides a quick overview of how an attorney can persuade a court to provide a client direct access to an opponent’s electronic devices during discovery. The article first give a brief overview of the current environment for electronic discovery and then examines the Shipman case. The author then provides some pointers on how an attorney can request direct access to electronic devices. Some points to consider include; scope of the direct access order, looking at the efforts and technical capacity of the responding party and their employees and agents, can you prove the likely existence of the documents, and finally is there evidence that the direct access protocol will succeed
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Brighter Sunshine: Proposed Changes to Rule 76A
No full textThis article critically examines Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, which governs the sealing of court records. Published in the 100th volume of Advocate (Texas), the article highlights the rule’s shortcomings in balancing public access to information with privacy concerns. This article proposes amendments to make the rule more transparent and accessible, ensuring that court records remain open to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality. The article argues that these changes would enhance the public’s trust in the judicial system and promote greater accountability. Ultimately, the article advocates for a modernized approach that reflects the current legal and societal landscape
Discovery Sharing in Texas: Litigant Confidentiality v. Litigation Costs
No full textTexas courts have long allowed discovery sharing between similar cases. After evaluating both pro- and anti-sharing positions, the article concludes that sharing furthers pretrial efficiency without unduly compromising trade secrets and other confidential information. The article first examines the development of discovery sharing as a routine practice. Second, the article considers some common arguments against discovery sharing. Third, it briefly examines the relationship between sharing and efforts to reduce pretrial costs, both in Texas and federal court systems. Finally, the article contends that sharing is a practice that both reduces costs and is compatible with litigants’ proprietary-information interests, even in cases involving trade secrets
Recommended from our members
Foundational and Contemporary Court Confidentiality
No full textAn integrated confidentiality system now pervades American dispute resolution. This system was created over the course of decades by legislatures, rule makers, and courts. Proponents of confidentiality have long justified expansive secrecy by claiming that the benefits of withholding litigation information outweigh any potential public harm. Recent evidence undermines this premise. In some of the most important public-harms cases of the past two decades, critical health-and-safety information was kept secret in court files. People died or were injured in the meantime. It has also become apparent that consolidating cases in multi-district litigation has the potential to accelerate and homogenize confidentiality nationally. The recent evidence of these trends is concerning and would prompt any conscientious observer to reconsider the status quo
Tangled Incentives: Proportionality and the Market for Reputation Harm
No full textExcessive litigation confidentiality and disproportionate discovery are symbiotic problems. Indeed, when a litigant uses discovery to obtain damaging information about an opposing party, the party will often pay money to avoid public disclosure through a confidentiality agreement. As a result, litigants have significant financial incentives to seek damaging information through discovery, whether it is connected to the case or not.
Nevertheless, policy makers largely approach discovery proportionality and confidentiality as unrelated problems. Take, for example, the recent proportionality amendment to Rule 26 limiting the scope of discovery, or "sunshine" statutes aimed at reducing litigation confidentiality for the sake of public safety. The reforms ignore one another and the tangled incentives that connect both problems.
This Article is the first to address the confidentiality-discovery incentive relationship in the post-proportionality-amendment era. It contends that making private confidentiality agreements illegal, at both the pretrial and settlement stages, would reduce incentives to seek low-merits-value discovery
Emerging Issues in Texas Dismissal Practice: Pleading Standards and Important Miscellany
No full textThis essay addresses the pleading-standard question and other emerging issues in Texas motion-to-dismiss practice. First, there is an examination of emerging questions regarding how Texas dismissal and pleading practices compare with federal plausibility pleading. Next, there is a survey of a few 91a cases that court and lawyers should note as they proceed through the dismissal process in state court
Texas Court Should Reject Lawsuit Secrecy
No full textThe current Texas law allows courts to enter protective orders to keep information secret from the public, but it currently allows this same information to be shared between cases. Corporations such as GM are petitioning the Texas Supreme Court to change this law in favor of pro-secrecy and prohibit information sharing between cases
- …
