My understanding has long been that in counting out time for a statute of limitations, one begins with the day aftrer the triggering event. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tell us to do that (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(A)), and my state jurisdiction, Illinois, has a statute that seems to say so as well (the Statute on Statutes, 5 ILCS 70). The Illinois provisions states:
"The time within which any act provided by law is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is Saturday or Sunday or is a holiday as defined or fixed in any statute now or hereafter in force in this State, and then it shall also be excluded. If the day succeeding such Saturday, Sunday or holiday is also a holiday or a Saturday or Sunday then such succeeding day shall also be excluded." (5 ILCS 70/1.11.)
Federal Rule 6(a)(1)(A) uses similar language, telling us to "exclude the day of the event that triggers the period".
This seems straightforward enough. However, as Joseph R. Marconi recently wrote in an article published by ISBA Mutual (a provider of lawyers' professional liability insurance), it may not be as clear as we thought. One intermediate appellate court and one Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court have treated the issue as subject to debate, raising the possibility that a limitations period actually expires on the day before the anniversary date of a triggering event. See his article, "What Can You Count On These Days?" for details.
One thing is clear -- don't wait until the last day to file. While the law seems to be settled for now, even the mere possibility that the ultimate day is really the penultimate day should be enough incentive to file earlier.
11.02.2011
Illinois Supreme Court Requires Redaction of Social Security Numbers in Filings Starting in 2012
Pursuant to Section 40 of the Identity Protection Act, 5 ILCS 179/40, passed in 2010 and designed to protect Social Security numbers, the Illinois Supreme Court has adopted new Rule 138 requiring parties not to include Social Security numbers within any filings "unless required for a particular filing". Presumably that means you can't include a Social Security number unless there is a good reason that the number itself matters to a particular filing. Such a situation is hard to imagine because a filer generally should be able to refer to a number's existence without actually spreading the number itself of record. For example, a claim about identity theft could be drafted to satisfy pleading requirements without revealing to the world the actual Social Security number at issue. In any event, if you must include the number the rule requires that you use just the last four digits in the public filing, and accompany it with a sealed filing disclosing the full number.
The rule does not specify how documents that the filer did not create (e.g., photocopied exhibits) that include embedded Social Security numbers should be brought into compliance. However, the wording of the rule implies that the filer should redact the document to make the number unreadable.
Filers should take care that their redaction technique actually accomplishes the redaction, becuase sometimes when you think something has been redacted, the supposedly covered-up information is still accessible. See the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts' admonition here, and an interesting discussion of failed redaction at this blog. The National Security Agency has published some tips on ways to properly redact documents, available here and here. Some district courts have posts about it, such as the District of New Jersey.
The new rule also states that the Illinois courts are not responsible for checking individual filings for compliance. In other words, a clerk is not supposed to take on the responsiblity of checking your filing to see whether you let a Social Security number slip through. The only policing mechanism is that "a party or identified person" who sees that a Social Security number has been publicly filed can move the court to order compliance, and if they prove the infraction was "willful" then they can be awarded fees and costs for bringing the motion. This rule should not spawn a cottage industry of 'file scrubbers' who troll the dockets looking for infractions because only a party to the actual case or the person whose Socual Security number was disclosed appear to have standing to file the motion.
The new rule originally was to be effective starting November 1, 2011. However, the court has now changed the effective date to January 1, 2012.
This rule brings the Illinois courts in line with federal courts, whose Judicial Conference began addressing this issue in 2000 (see their report here), which led to the adoption of rules such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (effective Dec. 1, 2007) requiring redacted filings.
The rule does not specify how documents that the filer did not create (e.g., photocopied exhibits) that include embedded Social Security numbers should be brought into compliance. However, the wording of the rule implies that the filer should redact the document to make the number unreadable.
Filers should take care that their redaction technique actually accomplishes the redaction, becuase sometimes when you think something has been redacted, the supposedly covered-up information is still accessible. See the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts' admonition here, and an interesting discussion of failed redaction at this blog. The National Security Agency has published some tips on ways to properly redact documents, available here and here. Some district courts have posts about it, such as the District of New Jersey.
The new rule also states that the Illinois courts are not responsible for checking individual filings for compliance. In other words, a clerk is not supposed to take on the responsiblity of checking your filing to see whether you let a Social Security number slip through. The only policing mechanism is that "a party or identified person" who sees that a Social Security number has been publicly filed can move the court to order compliance, and if they prove the infraction was "willful" then they can be awarded fees and costs for bringing the motion. This rule should not spawn a cottage industry of 'file scrubbers' who troll the dockets looking for infractions because only a party to the actual case or the person whose Socual Security number was disclosed appear to have standing to file the motion.
The new rule originally was to be effective starting November 1, 2011. However, the court has now changed the effective date to January 1, 2012.
This rule brings the Illinois courts in line with federal courts, whose Judicial Conference began addressing this issue in 2000 (see their report here), which led to the adoption of rules such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (effective Dec. 1, 2007) requiring redacted filings.
10.05.2011
Experts in Federal Practice
Today I spoke at the annual federal civil procedure update seminar presented in Chicago by the Practising Law Institute. This year's program was entitled “Federal Civil Practice Update 2011: A Practical Guide to New Developments, Procedures & Strategies.” I presented two topics relating to experts in federal practice: (1) methods of challenging an opponent’s experts, and (2) the 12/1/2010 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding expert discovery. I authored two articles that were published in the PLI Handbook for the seminar, which I am making available for download here:
"Challenging An Expert’s Opinion and Testimony"
"The 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Rules"
I hope you find these materials useful.
8.03.2010
Seventh Circuit Examines Pleading Requirements After Twombly/Iqbal
The Seventh Circuit has issued an opinion in Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10-1122, 2010 WL 2977297 (7th Cir. July 30, 2010), that explores the nature of federal civil pleading after Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 500 U.S. 544 (2007), Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). In an opinion by Judge Wood, joined by Judge Easterbrook, the majority evaluated the Supreme Court's new "plausibility" standard and ruled that the district court had raised the bar too high in dismissing plaintiff's complaint. In dissent, Judge Posner said that the majority's ruling was difficult to square with Iqbal because the plaintiff's allegations of housing discrimination were implausible.
Swanson clarified the Seventh Circuit's pleading standard, and should be required reading for all practitioners with civil cases in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin federal courts.
In Swanson, the majority held that the Supreme Court's movement away from the long-standing rule of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), meant that it is now clear "that a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law." However, the "question with which courts are still struggling is how much higher the Supreme Court meant to set the bar" when it decided Twombly, Erickson and Iqbal. The majority framed the issue this way: "On the one hand, the Supreme Court has adopted a 'plausibility' standard, but on the other hand, it has insisted that it is not requiring fact pleading, nor is it adopting a single pleading standard to replace Rule 8, Rule 9, and specialized regimes like the one in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act."
The majority emphasized that Rule 8 has never been abandoned, and that the Supreme Court "was not engaged in a sub rosa campaign to reinstate the old fact-pleading system." This was shown by the pronouncement in Erickson that the short-and-plain-statement required under Rule 8 "need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests" and "[s]pecific facts are not necessary." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93. It also is evident from the Court's reaffirmance of the validity of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), cited with approval in Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, under which the Court struck down attempts to impose heightened pleading requirements not listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Given the continued validity of notice pleading, the majority held that under the new requirement that a pleader "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" (Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949), plausibility "does not imply that the district court should decide whose version to believe, or which version is more likely than not." It set forth the Seventh Circuit's view of what the requirements now are for pleading in civil cases not governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) or special statutory pleading requirements:
"As we understand it, the Court is saying instead that the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together. In other words, the court will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they happen. For cases governed only by Rule 8, it is not necessary to stack up inferences side by side and allow the case to go forward only if the plaintiff’s inferences seem more compelling than the opposing inferences."
Judge Posner disagreed with the majority because in his view the plaintiff's housing discrimination claim simply was implausible, and the majority gave too much leeway to allow pleading of a mere possibility. He emphasized that while Iqbal stated, "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement'" (quoted by the majority), the rest of the sentence said, "but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." As I read Posner's dissent, he seems to be saying that the majority's holding that a district court "will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they happen," would allow the "sheer possibility" that Iqbal expressly rejected.
The case also includes an interesting discussion of the role of discovery in this debate. The majority acknowledged that "one powerful reason that lies behind the Supreme Court’s concern about pleading standards is the cost of the discovery that will follow in any case that survives a motion to dismiss on the pleadings." It noted that the Supreme Court's new standard was intended to make it more difficult to earn the right to engage in discovery. But it drew the line at using judicial interpretation to impose higher pleading standards than Rules 8 and 9 contemplate, which is what the majority evidently thought was the consequence of the dissent's approach.
In his dissent, Judge Posner wrote that the asymmetrical nature of much discovery in a pure notice-pleading regime was a structural flaw that helps explain and justify the Supreme Court's new approach. "It requires the plaintiff to conduct a more extensive precomplaint investigation than used to be required and so creates greater symmetry between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s litigation costs, and by doing so reduces the scope for extortionate discovery." To those who argue that a restrictive interpretation of the "plausibility" requirement would close the courthouse door too easily, Judge Posner offered an intriguing suggestion:
"If the plaintiff shows that he can’t conduct an even minimally adequate investigation without limited discovery, the judge presumably can allow that discovery, meanwhile deferring ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Coss v. Playtex Products, LLC, No. 08 C 50222, 2009 WL 1455358 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2009); Edward A. Hartnett, 'Taming Twombly, Even After Iqbal,' 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 473, 507-14 2010); Suzette M. Malveaux, 'Front Loading and Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address the Detrimental Effect of Iqbal on Civil Rights Cases,' 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 65 (2010)."
Judge Posner also offered an interesting opinion, echoing Judge Easterbrook of the majority, on the practical aspects of the use of magistrate judges to handle discovery disputes. It appears that in his view, district courts do not limit discovery as effectively as a restrictive interpretation of the "plausibility" requirement would:
"It is true, as critics of Twombly and Iqbal point out, that district courts have authority to limit discovery. [Citations omitted.] But especially in busy districts, which is where complex litigation is concentrated, the judges tend to delegate that authority to magistrate judges. And because the magistrate judge to whom a case is delegated for discovery only is not responsible for the trial or the decision and can have only an imperfect sense of how widely the district judge would want the factual inquiry in the case to roam to enable him to decide it, the magistrate judge is likely to err on the permissive side. 'One common form of unnecessary discovery (and therefore a ready source of threatened discovery) is delving into ten issues when one will be dispositive. A magistrate lacks the authority to carve off the nine unnecessary issues; for all the magistrate knows, the judge may want evidence on any one of them. So the magistrate stands back and lets the parties have at it. Pursuit of factual and legal issues that will not matter to the outcome of the case is a source of enormous unnecessary costs, yet it is one hard to conquer in a system of notice pleading and even harder to limit when an officer lacking the power to decide the case supervises discovery.' Frank H. Easterbrook, 'Discovery as Abuse,' 69 B.U. L. Rev. 635, 639 (1989)."
The court's split illustrates the great difficulty encountered in attempting to apply a "plausibility" standard without straying into evaluating probabilities, which Iqbal said was not the proper approach, or flat-out requiring fact pleading, which the Court repeatedly rejected. The majority's view in Swanson is that it is better to apply plausibility by applying a sliding scale of factual detail, varying with the particular case, so that there is just enough to tell a coherent story from which the legal conclusions plausibly could flow.
Swanson clarified the Seventh Circuit's pleading standard, and should be required reading for all practitioners with civil cases in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin federal courts.
In Swanson, the majority held that the Supreme Court's movement away from the long-standing rule of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), meant that it is now clear "that a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the law." However, the "question with which courts are still struggling is how much higher the Supreme Court meant to set the bar" when it decided Twombly, Erickson and Iqbal. The majority framed the issue this way: "On the one hand, the Supreme Court has adopted a 'plausibility' standard, but on the other hand, it has insisted that it is not requiring fact pleading, nor is it adopting a single pleading standard to replace Rule 8, Rule 9, and specialized regimes like the one in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act."
The majority emphasized that Rule 8 has never been abandoned, and that the Supreme Court "was not engaged in a sub rosa campaign to reinstate the old fact-pleading system." This was shown by the pronouncement in Erickson that the short-and-plain-statement required under Rule 8 "need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests" and "[s]pecific facts are not necessary." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93. It also is evident from the Court's reaffirmance of the validity of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), cited with approval in Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, under which the Court struck down attempts to impose heightened pleading requirements not listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Given the continued validity of notice pleading, the majority held that under the new requirement that a pleader "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" (Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949), plausibility "does not imply that the district court should decide whose version to believe, or which version is more likely than not." It set forth the Seventh Circuit's view of what the requirements now are for pleading in civil cases not governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) or special statutory pleading requirements:
"As we understand it, the Court is saying instead that the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together. In other words, the court will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they happen. For cases governed only by Rule 8, it is not necessary to stack up inferences side by side and allow the case to go forward only if the plaintiff’s inferences seem more compelling than the opposing inferences."
Judge Posner disagreed with the majority because in his view the plaintiff's housing discrimination claim simply was implausible, and the majority gave too much leeway to allow pleading of a mere possibility. He emphasized that while Iqbal stated, "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement'" (quoted by the majority), the rest of the sentence said, "but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." As I read Posner's dissent, he seems to be saying that the majority's holding that a district court "will ask itself could these things have happened, not did they happen," would allow the "sheer possibility" that Iqbal expressly rejected.
The case also includes an interesting discussion of the role of discovery in this debate. The majority acknowledged that "one powerful reason that lies behind the Supreme Court’s concern about pleading standards is the cost of the discovery that will follow in any case that survives a motion to dismiss on the pleadings." It noted that the Supreme Court's new standard was intended to make it more difficult to earn the right to engage in discovery. But it drew the line at using judicial interpretation to impose higher pleading standards than Rules 8 and 9 contemplate, which is what the majority evidently thought was the consequence of the dissent's approach.
In his dissent, Judge Posner wrote that the asymmetrical nature of much discovery in a pure notice-pleading regime was a structural flaw that helps explain and justify the Supreme Court's new approach. "It requires the plaintiff to conduct a more extensive precomplaint investigation than used to be required and so creates greater symmetry between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s litigation costs, and by doing so reduces the scope for extortionate discovery." To those who argue that a restrictive interpretation of the "plausibility" requirement would close the courthouse door too easily, Judge Posner offered an intriguing suggestion:
"If the plaintiff shows that he can’t conduct an even minimally adequate investigation without limited discovery, the judge presumably can allow that discovery, meanwhile deferring ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Coss v. Playtex Products, LLC, No. 08 C 50222, 2009 WL 1455358 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2009); Edward A. Hartnett, 'Taming Twombly, Even After Iqbal,' 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 473, 507-14 2010); Suzette M. Malveaux, 'Front Loading and Heavy Lifting: How Pre-Dismissal Discovery Can Address the Detrimental Effect of Iqbal on Civil Rights Cases,' 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 65 (2010)."
Judge Posner also offered an interesting opinion, echoing Judge Easterbrook of the majority, on the practical aspects of the use of magistrate judges to handle discovery disputes. It appears that in his view, district courts do not limit discovery as effectively as a restrictive interpretation of the "plausibility" requirement would:
"It is true, as critics of Twombly and Iqbal point out, that district courts have authority to limit discovery. [Citations omitted.] But especially in busy districts, which is where complex litigation is concentrated, the judges tend to delegate that authority to magistrate judges. And because the magistrate judge to whom a case is delegated for discovery only is not responsible for the trial or the decision and can have only an imperfect sense of how widely the district judge would want the factual inquiry in the case to roam to enable him to decide it, the magistrate judge is likely to err on the permissive side. 'One common form of unnecessary discovery (and therefore a ready source of threatened discovery) is delving into ten issues when one will be dispositive. A magistrate lacks the authority to carve off the nine unnecessary issues; for all the magistrate knows, the judge may want evidence on any one of them. So the magistrate stands back and lets the parties have at it. Pursuit of factual and legal issues that will not matter to the outcome of the case is a source of enormous unnecessary costs, yet it is one hard to conquer in a system of notice pleading and even harder to limit when an officer lacking the power to decide the case supervises discovery.' Frank H. Easterbrook, 'Discovery as Abuse,' 69 B.U. L. Rev. 635, 639 (1989)."
The court's split illustrates the great difficulty encountered in attempting to apply a "plausibility" standard without straying into evaluating probabilities, which Iqbal said was not the proper approach, or flat-out requiring fact pleading, which the Court repeatedly rejected. The majority's view in Swanson is that it is better to apply plausibility by applying a sliding scale of factual detail, varying with the particular case, so that there is just enough to tell a coherent story from which the legal conclusions plausibly could flow.
7.28.2010
Illinois Supreme Court Considering Allowing Discovery Depositions at Trials
I previously reported on the Illinois practice of differentiating between "discovery depositions" and "evidence depositions, and the unfortunate consequences that sometimes result -- as in the case of Berry v. American Standard, Inc., 382 Ill. App.3d 895 (2008). Motivated by the situation discussed in Berry and the strict result mandated under the current version of the applicable rule, the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee has proposed an amendment to Supreme Court Rule 212 to allow the use of a discovery deposition transcript as trial evidence in a very limited set of circumstances. The Committee's comments for the proposal state:
"The Committee believes that a trial court should have the discretion under Rule 212(a)(5) to permit the use of a party’s discovery deposition at trial. The current version of the Rule is absolute in its prohibition against the use of a party’s discovery deposition at trial. It appears, however, that there may be rare, but compelling circumstances under which a party’s discovery deposition should be permitted to be used. In the Committee’s view, Berry presents such circumstances. Given that in most cases, counsel will have the opportunity to preserve a party’s testimony via an evidence deposition, it is expected that the circumstances that would justify use of a discovery deposition would be extremely limited."
Click here for the proposed rules change. The Rules Committee is holding public hearings on the proposal in Chicago on July 28, 2010.
"The Committee believes that a trial court should have the discretion under Rule 212(a)(5) to permit the use of a party’s discovery deposition at trial. The current version of the Rule is absolute in its prohibition against the use of a party’s discovery deposition at trial. It appears, however, that there may be rare, but compelling circumstances under which a party’s discovery deposition should be permitted to be used. In the Committee’s view, Berry presents such circumstances. Given that in most cases, counsel will have the opportunity to preserve a party’s testimony via an evidence deposition, it is expected that the circumstances that would justify use of a discovery deposition would be extremely limited."
Click here for the proposed rules change. The Rules Committee is holding public hearings on the proposal in Chicago on July 28, 2010.
11.20.2009
New Seventh Circuit Appellate Court Nominee Receives Senate Confirmation
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will be adding a new judge to its roster. The Blog of the Legal Times of Washington, D.C. reports that David Hamilton, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis, and President Obama's first judicial nominee, was confirmed by a vote of 59 to 39. According to his page on the District Court's website, Judge Hamilton was appointed in 1994, and previously was a partner at Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis. He served as Counsel to the Governor of Indiana from 1989 to 1991 and from 1984 to 1989 was an associate at Barnes & Thornburg.
11.11.2009
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument On Corporation's Location For Diversity Purposes
The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument yesterday in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, No. 08-1107 (U.S.), cert. granted at 129 S. Ct. 2766 (June 8, 2009). The case concerns the vexing question of which state(s) constitute a corporation's state of citizenship for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §1332. Section 1332(a)(1) specifies that diversity exists between "citizens of different States," and §1332(c)(1) expressly provides that for purposes of diversity "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business."
That begs the question of how one should determine where a corporation has its principal place of business. The federal appellate courts have taken multiple approaches to deciding that question, and it appears that Hertz Corp. will allow the Supreme Court to resolve the split in the circuits. In the opionion below, Friend v. Hertz Corp., 297 Fed. Appx. 690 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that its "place of operations" test was corerctly applied. Under that framework, if the conglomeration of a corporation’s business activity in one State is significantly larger than that in any other state in which the corporation conducts business, that State is the corporation’s principal place of business. The entirety of the unpublished opinion below is reprinted here:
That begs the question of how one should determine where a corporation has its principal place of business. The federal appellate courts have taken multiple approaches to deciding that question, and it appears that Hertz Corp. will allow the Supreme Court to resolve the split in the circuits. In the opionion below, Friend v. Hertz Corp., 297 Fed. Appx. 690 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that its "place of operations" test was corerctly applied. Under that framework, if the conglomeration of a corporation’s business activity in one State is significantly larger than that in any other state in which the corporation conducts business, that State is the corporation’s principal place of business. The entirety of the unpublished opinion below is reprinted here:
Hertz's Notice of Appeal makes clear that Hertz removed this class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c). Therefore, even assuming we lack authority “to accept an appeal from the denial of a motion to remand when a class action has been removed to federal court on the basis of traditional diversity jurisdiction,” Saab v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 469 F.3d 758, 759 (8th Cir.2006), rather than pursuant to CAFA, we have jurisdiction over Hertz's timely appeal from the district court's order remanding this class action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).
The district court correctly applied the “place of operations” test to determine Hertz's principal place of business. Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't., 236 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.2001); Industrial Tectonics v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir.1990).
Taking the facts as set forth in the Declaration of Krista Memmelaar, Hertz's relevant business activities are “significantly larger” in California than in the next largest state, Florida. Although the difference between the amount of Hertz's business activity in California and the amount of its activity in Florida is not as large as the difference deemed to be significant in Tosco, California nevertheless “contains a substantial predominance” of Hertz's operations. Tosco Corp., 236 F.3d at 500.
Neither Tosco nor Industrial Tectonics supports Hertz's argument that we must consider the comparative population of states in which a corporation operates to determine whether activities are significantly larger in one state than another. Id.; Industrial Tectonics, 912 F.2d at 1092. Nor do policy concerns mandate the application of a per capita calculation. With its extensive California contacts and business activities, Hertz is not in jeopardy of being mistreated in California courts.
Because California is Hertz's principal place of business under the “place of operations” test, we do not apply the nerve center test. Tosco, 236 F.3d at 500.
In contrast, the "headquarters" or "nerve center" test looks for the location at which the corporation operates its headquarters. Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Ill., Inc., 551 F.3d 587, 590 (7th Cir. 2008). Hertz argued that the headquarters test should be applied instead of the conglomeration method used in the Ninth Circuit. The question presented in its petition for certiorari was "Whether, for purposes of determining principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332, a court can disregard the location of a nationwide corporation's headquarters - i.e., its nerve center."
The NLJ reported that at yesterday's oral argument, the Court appeared to be sympathetic to a "headquarters" standard. See their pair of interesting articles posted yesterday and today. Click here to download the Supreme Court brief of Hertz, the opposition brief of Friend, the reply brief of Hertz, and the amicus brief supporting Hertz.
8.16.2009
I have moved my blog to be hosted in a different way. In the near future I will be consolidating all of my civil procedure blog files in once place, rather than the patchwork that exists now. Hopefully this will improve service and make it easier to maintain this blog. Meanwhile, a large number of older posts will be reappearing here.
10.01.2008
Winning the Battle But Losing the War
When confronted with a discovery request, it often is a lawyer's instinct to react that the request is too broad. "That's outrageous and must be reigned in! I can't ask my client to find all of that!" However, you must be careful not to limit the opponent's discovery so much that you end up failing to produce documents that your own side needs to prove its claims or defenses.
A recent case from the Eighth Circuit illustrates the importance of not taking discovery-limiting positions that hurt your own case. In Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc., 540 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2008), the parties disputed the meaning of a trademark license agreement. The key disputed provision gave defendant the right to license certain of plaintiff's trademarks, provided the license was "evidenced by a separate written agreement in form and content customary to licenses of the type described above." When defendant presented plaintiff with the required payment and a license agreement, plaintiff balked and brought a declaratory judgment action to find that defendant was not entitled to the license.
During discovery, plaintiff served an interrogatory requesting defendant's explanation of what the contract meant by "customary form and content of licenses." Defendant responded that the license it had tendered (but which plaintiff rejected) was the only example that was needed. Plaintiff moved to compel a more informative answer but defendant prevailed. Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel a further response, but defendant countered with a motion for protective order, claiming the issue had been decided. The district court agreed with defendant.
Defendant succeeded in shutting down plaintiff's attempt to get defendant to explain what it thought the contract meant beyond merely saying that it believed its proposed license was satisfactory. So far so good. Defendant was saving itself the trouble of answering plaintiff's troublesome discovery requests, right?
Not so fast. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, contending that the contract language did not provide definite enough terms. Because the single example of a license agreement that defendant offered could not be determinative of what constitutes customary form and content of licenses, plaintiff argued, there was no evidence in the record from which one could conclude that the tendered license satisfied the contract's requirements. The defendant must have been surprised when the district court agreed, and granted summary judgment. It appealed, requesting among other things that the matter be remanded with directions to re-open for additional fact and expert discovery.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court had not committed error "by granting [plaintiff's] motion for summary judgment without allowing [defendant] an opportunity to conduct discovery that it had previously declined to conduct." The lesson here is that defendant was too good at shutting down plaintiff's discovery attempts. Without allowing information to find its way into the record that defendant needed to prove its own interpretation of the contract, defendant deprived itself of any defense to the summary judgment motion. As this was a situation of defendant's own creation, defendant apparently found little sympathy with the district court or appellate court.
It is interesting to note that on appeal defendant argued that the district court had somehow violated the law-of-the-case doctrine. Apparently, defendant claimed that the fact that the district court had refused to compel defendant to produce the evidence concerning trademark license agreements generally rendered any such evidence, if it had been produced in response to the summary judgment motion, inadmissible for purposes of establishing a genuine issue of material fact. The appellate court disagreed, finding that refusal to compel was in no way a ruling on admissibility.
I tend to see the law-of-the-case argument as better fitting the other side's argument because that doctrine, like other branches of judicial estoppel, is intended to force parties to live with the consequences of their litigation strategy choices. If a defendant argues that it shouldn't be put to producing something in discovery, it must accept that if the court accepts that argument defendant will be barred from producing it later should it turn out to be needed. So before you set out to win a discovery battle, be sure that you aren't setting yourself up to lose the war.
A recent case from the Eighth Circuit illustrates the importance of not taking discovery-limiting positions that hurt your own case. In Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc., 540 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2008), the parties disputed the meaning of a trademark license agreement. The key disputed provision gave defendant the right to license certain of plaintiff's trademarks, provided the license was "evidenced by a separate written agreement in form and content customary to licenses of the type described above." When defendant presented plaintiff with the required payment and a license agreement, plaintiff balked and brought a declaratory judgment action to find that defendant was not entitled to the license.
During discovery, plaintiff served an interrogatory requesting defendant's explanation of what the contract meant by "customary form and content of licenses." Defendant responded that the license it had tendered (but which plaintiff rejected) was the only example that was needed. Plaintiff moved to compel a more informative answer but defendant prevailed. Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel a further response, but defendant countered with a motion for protective order, claiming the issue had been decided. The district court agreed with defendant.
Defendant succeeded in shutting down plaintiff's attempt to get defendant to explain what it thought the contract meant beyond merely saying that it believed its proposed license was satisfactory. So far so good. Defendant was saving itself the trouble of answering plaintiff's troublesome discovery requests, right?
Not so fast. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, contending that the contract language did not provide definite enough terms. Because the single example of a license agreement that defendant offered could not be determinative of what constitutes customary form and content of licenses, plaintiff argued, there was no evidence in the record from which one could conclude that the tendered license satisfied the contract's requirements. The defendant must have been surprised when the district court agreed, and granted summary judgment. It appealed, requesting among other things that the matter be remanded with directions to re-open for additional fact and expert discovery.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court had not committed error "by granting [plaintiff's] motion for summary judgment without allowing [defendant] an opportunity to conduct discovery that it had previously declined to conduct." The lesson here is that defendant was too good at shutting down plaintiff's discovery attempts. Without allowing information to find its way into the record that defendant needed to prove its own interpretation of the contract, defendant deprived itself of any defense to the summary judgment motion. As this was a situation of defendant's own creation, defendant apparently found little sympathy with the district court or appellate court.
It is interesting to note that on appeal defendant argued that the district court had somehow violated the law-of-the-case doctrine. Apparently, defendant claimed that the fact that the district court had refused to compel defendant to produce the evidence concerning trademark license agreements generally rendered any such evidence, if it had been produced in response to the summary judgment motion, inadmissible for purposes of establishing a genuine issue of material fact. The appellate court disagreed, finding that refusal to compel was in no way a ruling on admissibility.
I tend to see the law-of-the-case argument as better fitting the other side's argument because that doctrine, like other branches of judicial estoppel, is intended to force parties to live with the consequences of their litigation strategy choices. If a defendant argues that it shouldn't be put to producing something in discovery, it must accept that if the court accepts that argument defendant will be barred from producing it later should it turn out to be needed. So before you set out to win a discovery battle, be sure that you aren't setting yourself up to lose the war.
9.18.2008
Recent Developments Making Privilege Waivers Less Likely
The past few weeks have seen some extraordinary developments in the area of waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection.
First came the news that the Department of Justice has reversed course after pursuing a policy for many years in which it has pressured corporations to waive privilege if they want to be credited with being cooperative in a DOJ investigation. That policy had been embodied in a memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations," dated January 20, 2003. A short memorandum, entitled "Waiver of Corporate Attorney-Client and Work Product Protections," by Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, Jr., was published on October 21, 2005, which recognized the need to develop some procedural controls that were absent from the Thompson Memorandum. The policies embodied in those memoranda were highly controversial because they represented a systematic assault on the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship that forms a central backbone of our adversarial judicial system. The DOJ in effect was saying that it could pressure corporations to waive confidentiality during an investigation, even though such a waiver could have disasterous consequences for individual corporate employees who also were targets of the same investigation and for the company and its employees in companion civil litigation brought by private parties.
The controversy led to a revised memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations," dated December 13, 2006, but that memorandum brought little real change in policy. Although it imposed new internal approval procedures that prosecutors had to follow when requesting that a corporate target waive privilege, the fundamental issue remained: Prosecutors were empowered to make requesting waiver of privilege a part of their arsenal whenever they felt justified in doing so.
However, all of that changed on August 28, 2009 when newly-appointed Deputy Attorney General Mark R. Filip announced the promulgation of a new policy. Bowing to pressure from a wide range of sources, the DOJ adopted a formal policy generally directing prosecutors not to seek privilege waivers from companies as part of their cooperation efforts. Rather than continue the string of less formal internal memoranda, the new policy formally was incorporated into Chapter 9-28 of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual. This change likely will moot efforts in Congress to legislatively direct a change in DOJ policy regarding a waiver-based quid pro quo.
Second, and coincidentally on the same day, the Second Circuit published United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2008). In addition to pressuring companies to waive privilege to the detriment of individual employees (often ex-employees), the DOJ also had a policy of pressuring corporations not to pay the legal fees of accused employees. Among other things, this represented a different kind of erosion of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, i.e. by preventing company employees from hiring lawyers so that attorney-based privileges never arose in the first place. In Stein, the Second Circuit held that it was improper for the DOJ to have pressured KPMG into refusal to pay defense costs for numerous individuals at KPMG who were accused of wrongdoing in connection with counseling clients regarding various tax shelters. The court found that the DOJ's actions deprived those individual defendants of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the indictment.
Finally, last week the U.S. Congress sent legislation to the President that would create a new Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which the Judicial Conference proposed to Congress on September 26, 2007. As stated in the original proposal, and in the Senate committee report on the legislation, the purpose of new Rule 502 is to provide protections against waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, and to reduce the costs associated with discovery (and, it was noted, particularly electronic discovery). The rule accomplishes the following:
First came the news that the Department of Justice has reversed course after pursuing a policy for many years in which it has pressured corporations to waive privilege if they want to be credited with being cooperative in a DOJ investigation. That policy had been embodied in a memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations," dated January 20, 2003. A short memorandum, entitled "Waiver of Corporate Attorney-Client and Work Product Protections," by Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, Jr., was published on October 21, 2005, which recognized the need to develop some procedural controls that were absent from the Thompson Memorandum. The policies embodied in those memoranda were highly controversial because they represented a systematic assault on the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship that forms a central backbone of our adversarial judicial system. The DOJ in effect was saying that it could pressure corporations to waive confidentiality during an investigation, even though such a waiver could have disasterous consequences for individual corporate employees who also were targets of the same investigation and for the company and its employees in companion civil litigation brought by private parties.
The controversy led to a revised memorandum by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations," dated December 13, 2006, but that memorandum brought little real change in policy. Although it imposed new internal approval procedures that prosecutors had to follow when requesting that a corporate target waive privilege, the fundamental issue remained: Prosecutors were empowered to make requesting waiver of privilege a part of their arsenal whenever they felt justified in doing so.
However, all of that changed on August 28, 2009 when newly-appointed Deputy Attorney General Mark R. Filip announced the promulgation of a new policy. Bowing to pressure from a wide range of sources, the DOJ adopted a formal policy generally directing prosecutors not to seek privilege waivers from companies as part of their cooperation efforts. Rather than continue the string of less formal internal memoranda, the new policy formally was incorporated into Chapter 9-28 of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual. This change likely will moot efforts in Congress to legislatively direct a change in DOJ policy regarding a waiver-based quid pro quo.
Second, and coincidentally on the same day, the Second Circuit published United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2008). In addition to pressuring companies to waive privilege to the detriment of individual employees (often ex-employees), the DOJ also had a policy of pressuring corporations not to pay the legal fees of accused employees. Among other things, this represented a different kind of erosion of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, i.e. by preventing company employees from hiring lawyers so that attorney-based privileges never arose in the first place. In Stein, the Second Circuit held that it was improper for the DOJ to have pressured KPMG into refusal to pay defense costs for numerous individuals at KPMG who were accused of wrongdoing in connection with counseling clients regarding various tax shelters. The court found that the DOJ's actions deprived those individual defendants of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the indictment.
Finally, last week the U.S. Congress sent legislation to the President that would create a new Federal Rule of Evidence 502, which the Judicial Conference proposed to Congress on September 26, 2007. As stated in the original proposal, and in the Senate committee report on the legislation, the purpose of new Rule 502 is to provide protections against waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, and to reduce the costs associated with discovery (and, it was noted, particularly electronic discovery). The rule accomplishes the following:
- Avoidance of broad subject-matter waiver implications. If a waiver is found, it only applies to the information disclosed, unless a broader waiver is made necesary by the holder's intentional and misleading use of protected information.
- Waiver does not occur through inadvertent disclosure. Inadvertent disclosure in federal proceedings does not cause a waiver if the holder took reasonable steps to avoid inadvertent disclosure and took reasonable steps to claw it back, e.g. following Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B).
- Non-waiver provisions in protective orders enforceable. If a federal court orders that disclosure of protected information is not a waiver, that order is also binding against non-parties and in both state and federal proceedings. If the parties enter into a non-waiver agreement, they can make it binding on non-parties by having it entered as a court order.
- State courts covered. When a disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under Rule 502 if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not a waiver under the law of that state.
If signed by the President as expected, Rule 502 will not change the substantive law of privilege at all, only the law of waiver. As one member of the House of Representatives remarked, "The
legislation improves the efficiency and the discovery process, while it still promotes accountability. It alters neither Federal nor State law on whether the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine protects specific information. The bill only modifies the consequences of an inadvertent disclosure once a privilege exists." (Cong. Rec. Sept. 8, 2008 at p. H7819.)
Hopefully this new rule will give parties confidence in the non-waiver agreement as a cost-reducing technique in appropriate cases, lessen the consequences of inadvertent production, and reduce litigation over waiver issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
