tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46358190717414381982024-03-17T03:47:46.929-07:00Wasserman's Civil Procedure"I'll let you write the substance...you let me write the procedure, and I'll screw you every time"Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-7438232422100419452024-03-15T08:46:00.000-07:002024-03-15T11:38:23.265-07:00For Wednesday<p>Friday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-49.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-14.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 4 posts at noon next Wednesday; Essay # 3 due at the beginning of class Wednesday.</p><p>Someone made a good point after class: The 26(f) conference, discovery plan, and initial Rule 16 conference may streamline this process. The parties would identify the dispute over the formulae during the conference, flag the dispute as part of the discovery plan, and address it with the court at a conference, probably through cross-motions. That gets us to the point we reached--the parties present the dispute to the court, the court decides the formula is discoverable and orders production, Coca Cola resists (loudly) the order, and the court imposes sanctions. It skips the intermediate steps of Bottler having to make requests and Coca Cola having to object to set-up the motions. This reflects FRCP 26(f) streamlining the process--as it is designed to do. By the way, I have done this problem with a room full of lawyers--and no one identified that idea.</p><p>We move to <u><b>Summary Judgment</b></u><b>: Standards and Procedures</b>. Prep everything assigned.<br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• What is the connection between discovery and summary judgment?</p><p><span> </span>•
How does summary judgment differ from 12(b)(6) and 12(c)? What will the
court consider on a motion for summary judgment? What is a stipulation?</p><p><span> </span>•
What is an affidavit or declaration (and how are they different)? How
else can a party preview a witness' testimony besides an affidavit or
declaration? What is the difference and when will the party choose one
or the other?</p><p><span> </span>• Break down the elements of FRCP 26(a) and the meaning of each key term. Think of how these terms apply in <i>Scott</i>, <i>Adickes</i>, and <i>Celotex</i>. How does the court decide each of these terms without acting as factfinder?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What is direct evidence? What is circumstantial evidence?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the burden of persuasion? What is the burden of production?</p><p>Note that <i>Salazar-Limon</i> is not a case to read but another problem that I will give you on the blog.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-9273802020146072572024-03-14T08:42:00.000-07:002024-03-14T17:15:57.365-07:00For Friday<p>Thursday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/sw-53rd-ave-5.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="ttps://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-48.m4a">Section B</a>. My apologies for those of you in Section A who had LSV at 11:20; I did not realize we were running into class time.</p><p>We will have a few final words on sanctions. We know the goal is the minimum sanction to ensure compliance. What fact(s) should the court consider in figuring out what that is (hint: they were all things that some of you mentioned). On the question of available sanctions, see FRCP 37(b)(2)(B) for sanctions for violating FRCP 35 and FRCP 45(g) for sanctions for violating a subpoena. Why the unique treatment of contempt in both of those?<br /></p><p>We then get to <i><b>Coca Cola.</b> </i>Remember, one person can only speak 3 times. So everyone on each side must be ready to participate or this will come to a screeching halt. I reserve the right to cold-call.<br /></p><p>Both sections: One person can speak no more than three times in
working the problem; that means I expect everyone to participate in this
discussion. I reserve the right to cold call. <br /></p><p><span> </span><i>Coca
Cola Bottling Co. (Bottling) contracts with Coca Cola Co. (Coca) to
bottle Coca Cola. Coca sends pre-mixed syrup to the bottler; the bottler
mixes the syrup with carbonated water, bottles it, and ships it. The
contract sets a price at which Bottler purchases syrup for "Coca Cola."
The formula for Coca Cola is among the best-kept trade secrets in
American business, particularly the composition of the mystery
ingredient known as "Merchandise 7X."</i><i> Two people in the company at any time know the forumla </i><i>for Merchandise 7X</i><i>.
The written formula is locked in a bank vault that can be opened only
on resolution of the company Board of Directors (which requires a
meeting and a vote, which takes some time but is not burdensome).<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span>Coca
introduces "New Coke" and "Diet Coke" as new products. The secret
ingredient in those products is "7X-100." As with 7X, two people in the
company know the 7X-100 formula, the written formula is locked in a
vault and opening the vault requires a resolution of the Board of
Directors. Coca sells the syrup for New Coke and Diet Coke to Bottler,
but at a substantially higher price than the contract price.</i></p><p><i><span> </span>Bottler
sues Coca for breach of contract, arguing that Coca must sell New Coke
and Diet Coke syrup at the contract price for Coca Cola. Bottler seeks
to obtain discovery of the formulae for Merchandise 7X and 7X-100; Coca
does not want to turn this information over.<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span>Be prepared to litigate for both sides:</i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• Was Coca required to disclose under 26(a)?</i><br /></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• How can Bottler seek the formula and how can Coca resist?</i><i> <br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• Must the formulae be provided and on what terms? What can either party do if it disagrees with that resolution?<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• What can Coca do if the court orders it to provide the formulae? What can the court do in response? What choices does Coca have?<br /></i></p><p><b> </b>I hope to at least begin <b>Summary Judgment:</b> Standards and Procedures. For tomorrow, review FRCP 56(a), (b), and (c), along with FRCP 12(d).</p><p><span> </span>• What is the connection between discovery and summary judgment?</p><p><span> </span>• How does summary judgment differ from 12(b)(6) and 12(c)? What will the court consider on a motion for summary judgment? What is a stipulation?</p><p><span> </span>• What is an affidavit or declaration (and how are they different)? How else can a party preview a witness' testimony besides an affidavit or declaration? What is the difference and when will the party choose one or the other?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-44203591058871506552024-03-13T12:35:00.000-07:002024-03-13T12:35:32.407-07:00For Thursday<p>Wednesday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-47.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-13.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 3 posted at noon today.</p><p>We continue with both sections in <b>Discovery</b>; please review assigned rules.<br /></p><p><span> </span>• Where does the obligation for parties to comply with discovery rules come from? What about non-parties?</p><p><span> </span>•
What is the process for seeking, obtaining, and responding to
discovery?</p><p><span> </span>• When and how does the court become involved?</p><p><span> </span>• How does the
court ensure compliance with discovery obligations when it becomes involved?<br /></p><p><u>Discovery Review</u> will involve <i><b>Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca Cola Co.</b></i> You should be able to prepare for it for tomorrow. In Section A, the side of the room closest to the door represents the Bottler; the other side represents Coca Cola.</p><p>Both sections: One person can speak no more than three times in working the problem; that means I expect everyone to participate in this discussion. I reserve the right to cold call. <br /></p><p><span> </span><i>Coca
Cola Bottling Co. (Bottling) contracts with Coca Cola Co. (Coca) to
bottle Coca Cola. Coca sends pre-mixed syrup to the bottler; the bottler
mixes the syrup with carbonated water, bottles it, and ships it. The
contract sets a price at which Bottler purchases syrup for "Coca Cola."
The formula for Coca Cola is among the best-kept trade secrets in
American business, particularly the composition of the mystery
ingredient known as "Merchandise 7X."</i><i> Two people in the company at any time know the forumla </i><i>for Merchandise 7X</i><i>.
The written formula is locked in a bank vault that can be opened only
on resolution of the company Board of Directors (which requires a
meeting and a vote, which takes some time but is not burdensome).<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span>Coca
introduces "New Coke" and "Diet Coke" as new products. The secret
ingredient in those products is "7X-100." As with 7X, two people in the
company know the 7X-100 formula, the written formula is locked in a
vault and opening the vault requires a resolution of the Board of
Directors. Coca sells the syrup for New Coke and Diet Coke to Bottler,
but at a substantially higher price than the contract price.</i></p><p><i><span> </span>Bottler
sues Coca for breach of contract, arguing that Coca must sell New Coke
and Diet Coke syrup at the contract price for Coca Cola. Bottler seeks
to obtain discovery of the formulae for Merchandise 7X and 7X-100; Coca
does not want to turn this information over.<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span>Be prepared to litigate for both sides:</i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• Was Coca required to disclose under 26(a)?</i><br /></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• How can Bottler seek the formula and how can Coca resist?</i><i> <br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• Must the formulae be provided and on what terms?<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• What can Coca do if the court orders it to provide it? What can the court do in response?</i></p><p> </p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-3903388923787515622024-03-13T09:01:00.000-07:002024-03-13T09:01:00.135-07:00Essay # 3
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">COLLEGE
REPUBLICANS )</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">OF STATE
UNIVERSITY<span> </span><span> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">OF NEW YORK-<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">BINGHAMTON,<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 5;"> </span>Plaintiff<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>v.<span style="mso-tab-count: 6;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">BRIAN ROSE,
IN HIS<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">OFFICIAL
CAPACITY<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">AS VICE
PRESIDENT FOR<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">STUDENT
AFFAIRS AT<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">SUNY-BINGHAMTON,
and <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">IN HISINDIVIDUAL<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">CAPACITY, et
al.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span>Defendants<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">* * *</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><u>Count I</u>:
Violation of First Amendment</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">(v. Brian Rose
in his Official Capacity)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">* * *</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><u>Count II</u>:
Violation of First Amendment</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">(v. Brian
Rose in his Individual Capacity)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">The claims
arise from two incidents at the State University of New York (SUNY)-Binghamton,
in which ideologically adverse campus groups disrupted the College Republicans’
expressive events and university officials failed to protect the group’s speech.
The first was a “tabling” event on November 14, 2021 promoting an upcoming lecture
by renowned economist and president adviser Dr. Arthur Laffer (“Tabling Event”).
The second was Dr. Laffer’s lecture days later (“Laffer Event”), which ended
after fifteen minutes when protesters prevented Laffer from being heard and he
left the stage. Plaintiff alleges that Rose (and other university officials
named as defendants, who are not important for present purposes) allowed the
events to be interrupted; did nothing to protect plaintiff from the disrupting
crowd or to ensure its expressive events could continue; encouraged the
disruptions; and pushed the Republicans and their invited speaker to end both
events.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">Rose moves
to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). The court issues the following order:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1) Rose
Motion to Dismiss Count I--the official-capacity claim--is DENIED; Count I may
proceed. College Republicans of Binghamton sufficiently pleaded that its First
Amendment rights were violated because university officials failed to stop disruption
of the Tabling Event and disruption of the Laffer Event and failed to protect
plaintiff in the exercise of its First Amendment rights. The complaint
sufficiently pleads an ongoing violation and a risk of future violations of
plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by Rose in his official capacity.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>2) Rose Motion to Dismiss Count II--the
individual-capacity claim--is GRANTED; Count II is DISMISSED. As described
above, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that its First Amendment were violated by
the disruption of the two events; that fconclusion applies to the
individual-capacity claim and the official-capacity claim. (<i>See</i> Order ¶
1).<i> </i>But to hold a government-official defendant personally liable in an
individual capacity for damages, plaintiff must plead and prove an additional
element—that the government official, through that official’s own individual
actions, violated the Constitution. <i>Tangretti v. Bachmann</i> (2d Cir.
2020). Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient nonconclusory facts about Rose’s
personal actions with respect to either the Tabling Event or the Laffer Event
to plausibly show Rose’s individual connection to those violations. Count II is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; plaintiff may move to amend if discovery reveals
Rose’s personal involvement in the constitutional violations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">Rose files an
Answer to the official-capacity claim (Count I).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">A Rule
16(b) Scheduling Order provides in relevant part:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Discovery
closes 90 days after all depositions have been taken.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Parties
may seek leave to amend at any time until 30 days after completion of the final
deposition.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>3.<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>The
court does not set a date for trial at this time. The court will confer with
the parties to set a trial date following the close of discovery, resolution of
dispositive motions, and completion of settlement efforts.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">The case
proceeds to discovery. Plaintiff takes its final deposition on November 24,
2023; defendant takes its final deposition on December 30, 2023.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">On January
15, 2024, plaintiff moves for leave to amend to add a claim for damages against
Rose in his individual capacity. The motion states that documents obtained in
discovery and deposition testimony from several witnesses provide new
information linking Rose to the Tabling and Laffer events and thus supporting an
individual-capacity claim.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">The
proposed Amended Complaint (attached to the motion) repeats all factual
allegations of the original Complaint. It adds the individual-capacity claim as
Court II and includes the following new allegations:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>52.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Rose personally traveled to the Tabling Event
but chose not to intervene when protesters disrupted the event.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>53. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To
the contrary, Rose told several disruptive students and groups that he would
not stop their disruptive actions so long as no one was physically injured.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>* * *</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>91.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Rose told the chief of campus police to confront
the speaker at the Laffer Event and to encourage him to return to his plane and
cancel the event.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>92.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The chief of police, who reports to and is
supervised by Rose in the university hierarchy, followed those instructions.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>* * *</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>102.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Rose observed the Laffer Event from a
conference room in university-police headquarters, saw the disruption occurring,
but did nothing to intervene.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">Rose
opposes the motion for leave to amend.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><b> </b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><b> </b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><b>For the
court, decide the motion.</b></p>
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859921 -1073711039 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-71358905071852774242024-03-12T08:33:00.000-07:002024-03-12T08:33:32.501-07:00Sample Discovery Documents<p>Purely to demonstrate how they look and sound. We are not going to dig into these cases. <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/wackenhut---1rst-set-of-interrogatores-11.doc">Here</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/request-for-production-rh-design-10.doc">here</a>, and <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/mdcs-first-set-of-interrogatories-12.doc">here</a>.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-59755026032993116222024-03-08T14:41:00.000-08:002024-03-09T08:58:38.173-08:00For Wednesday<p>Friday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-9.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-10.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 3 will post at noon Wednesday.</p><p>We continue on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday with <b>Discovery</b>. Review <u>Discovery Process</u>, then prep <u>Enforcing and Avoiding Obligations</u>, which adds FRCP 37 (all) and 45(a), (d), (e), and (g), as well as <i>Seattle Times</i> to the prior reading.</p><p><span> </span>• Why have the proportionality requirement in the rule? How does FRCP 26(b)(2) relate to 26(b)(1)?</p><p><span> </span>• Review the rules relating to the various discovery devices. Is there a particular order in which to use each device?</p><p><span> </span>• What is unique about FRCP 35 compared with other rules? What does <i>Schlagenhauf</i> tell about the scope and meaning of FRCP 35?</p><p><span> </span>• Where does the obligation for parties to comply with discovery rules come from? What about non-parties?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the process for seeking, obtaining, and responding to discovery? When and how does the court become involved? How does the court ensure compliance?<br /></p><p><u>Discovery Review</u> (probably for later Thursday or Friday) will involve <i><b>Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca Cola Co.</b></i> (You probably cannot fully analyze the problem until we get through Wednesday and Thursday materials, but you have it).<br /></p><p><span> </span><i>Coca Cola Bottling Co. (Bottling) contracts with Coca Cola Co. (Coca) to bottle Coca Cola. Coca sends pre-mixed syrup to the bottler; the bottler mixes the syrup with carbonated water, bottles it, and ships it. The contract sets a price at which Bottler purchases syrup for "Coca Cola." The formula for Coca Cola is among the best-kept trade secrets in American business, particularly the composition of the mystery ingredient known as "Merchandise 7X."</i><i> Two people in the company at any time know the forumla </i><i>for Merchandise 7X</i><i>. The written formula is locked in a bank vault that can be opened only on resolution of the company Board of Directors (which requires a meeting and a vote, which takes some time but is not burdensome).<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span>Coca introduces "New Coke" and "Diet Coke" as new products. The secret ingredient in those products is "7X-100." As with 7X, two people in the company know the 7X-100 formula, the written formula is locked in a vault and opening the vault requires a resolution of the Board of Directors. Coca sells the syrup for New Coke and Diet Coke to Bottler, but at a substantially higher price than the contract price.</i></p><p><i><span> </span>Bottler sues Coca for breach of contract, arguing that Coca must sell New Coke and Diet Coke syrup at the contract price for Coca Cola. Bottler seeks to obtain discovery of the formulae for Merchandise 7X and 7X-100; Coca does not want to turn this information over.<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span>Be prepared to litigate for both sides:</i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• Was Coca required to disclose under 26(a)?</i><br /></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• How can Bottler seek the formula and how can Coca resist?</i><i> <br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• Must the formulae be provided and on what terms?<br /></i></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>• What can Coca do if the court orders it to provide it? What can the court do in response?</i><br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-3600131293298115262024-03-07T08:35:00.000-08:002024-03-07T17:39:12.361-08:00For Friday<p>Thursday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-7.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-8.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 3 will be posted next Wednesday.</p><p>We are now done with pleading, so you should review the flow charts and put all the pieces together.</p><p>We move to <b>Managerial Judging</b> and <b>Discovery:</b> <u>Discovery Process</u>. For discovery, focus on the assigned pieces of FRCP 26, FRCP 30(a)-(d), 33, 34, 35, and 36, along with the Glannon reading.<br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• What is managerial judging and how does FRCP 16 contribute to that? What does FRCP 16 require or allow the judge to do?</p><p><span> </span>• How does discovery square with the adversary system? How does adverseness work into discovery? How do the rules attempt to reduce adverseness?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• Why would a party object in a deposition? How can a party protect its interests while responding to a Rule 34 document request?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What is the connection between discovery and notice pleading?</p><p><span> </span>• What is disclosure and what is the standard for disclosure? How is that different than the ordinary standard for what is discoverable? Why a different standard for disclosure?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• Think about the various discovery devices (in FRCP 30-36), how they fit together, what information they provide, and a rough order in which to employ the devices.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-50832807514618028212024-03-06T09:01:00.000-08:002024-03-06T12:54:39.628-08:00For Thursday<p>Wednesday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-5.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-6.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 3 will post next Wednesday, March 13 and will be due the following Wednesday, March 20 (I understand you all have LSV papers this weekend). Many people still need to pick up Essays ## 1 and 2.<br /></p><p>We continue with <u>Amendments</u> and Relation Back.</p><p><span> </span>• What is imputed or constructive notice? Key emphasis on "impute"--what does that word mean and how does that explain "imputed knowledge?" How can the to-be-added party get either actual or imputed notice? What are the timing requirements for that notice?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What is a "mistake concerning the proper party's identity," according to the 1966 Committee notes, <i>Krupski</i>, and <i>Herrera</i>? Why no relation back of a Doe defendant? What is the argument that <i>Krupski</i> allows Doe relation back?</p><p>Then move to <u>Managerial Judging</u>, focused on FRCP 16.</p><p><span> </span>• What is managerial judging and how does FRCP 16 contribute to that? What does FRCP 16 require or allow the judge to do?</p><p>Then we may hit the very beginning of <b>Discovery:</b> <u>Discovery Process</u>. Just for tomorrow, prep FRCP 26(f), 30, and 34.</p><p><span> </span>• How does discovery square with the adversary system? How does adverseness work into discovery?</p><p><span> </span>• Why would a party object in a deposition?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the connection between discovery and notice pleading?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-27546558400624326602024-03-06T07:01:00.001-08:002024-03-06T07:01:00.142-08:00Sample Answer--Essay # 2<p><u>Section A</u>: Median: 14; Mean: 14.7</p><p><u>Section B</u>: Median: 17.5; Mean: 15.6<span></span></p><a name='more'></a>
<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Garamond",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman \(Body CS\)"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Acrison, Inc. v.
Anthony Rainone and Brach Eichler LLC</span></i></b>
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:auto;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style> <br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The motion to dismiss is denied.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading stating a claim for relief.
FRCP 12(b)(6). The court looks at the four corners of the complaint and accepts
all well-pleaded, nonconclusory facts as true. The court may take judicial
notice of generally known facts and facts established in public records, which are
treated as within the four corners of the complaint. A claim is legally
insufficient when, taking the nonconclusory facts as true, no legal right has
been violated and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The statute of limitations is a longstanding
affirmative defense identified in the federal rules. FRCP 8(c). An affirmative
defense provides “allegations or statements of new matter, in opposition to
former pleading which, admitting facts in such former pleading, shows cause why
they should not have their ordinary legal effect.” The defendant bears the
burden of pleading the facts supporting the affirmative defense and the burden
of persuasion on those facts at trial. An affirmative defense may provide the reason
a pleading fails to state a claim for relief—a different law demonstrating the
insufficiency of the claim in the complaint. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Proper Motion</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Plaintiff argues that a 12(b)(6) is an
improper vehicle for raising a statute of limitations affirmative defense.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A defendant must raise affirmative defenses
in responding to a pleading. FRCP 8(c). A defendant typically pleads an
affirmative defense in a responsive pleading, such as an Answer to a Complaint,
by stating “in short and plain terms” the facts supporting that affirmative
defense. FRCP 8(b)(1)(A). The plaintiff may request, and the court grant, an
order to file a Reply to an Answer (FRCP 7(a)(7)), responding to the new facts
alleged in support of the affirmative defense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The defendant can move for judgment on the pleadings on the affirmative
defense, FRCP 12(c), with the court viewing the facts pleaded in the Complaint,
Answer, and Reply.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A defendant may follow an alternative
approach for “built-in defenses,” where the affirmative defense is built into
the complaint because the plaintiff pleads the facts necessary to the
affirmative defense. The defendant can move to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, FRCP 12(b)(6), filed prior to the
Answer. The court views the necessary facts in the complaint, take them as
true, and determine whether the affirmative defense defeats the claim. The
court also may take judicial notice of facts established in public records,
which become part of the four corners of the complaint.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A statute of limitations defense represents
the paradigm of a built-in defense. Plaintiff typically pleads the dates of the
relevant events giving rise to the claim and the court can take judicial notice
of when the current civil action was filed; it can consider those facts to
determine whether the claim is timely. Plaintiff here pleads the relevant
dates, allowing the court to determine the timeliness of the action on a
12(b)(6) based on the four corners of the complaint.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Motion to Dismiss</span></u><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">The court
takes judicial notice, based on the complaint filed as a public record, that
plaintiff filed the civil action on February 3, 2024. <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A § 1030 suit must brought within two years of “</span>the act
complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage.” § 1030(g). The “or”
makes § 1030(g) disjunctive—an action is timely if plaintiff files within two
years of either event. To be timely, therefore, either the violative acts or
the discovery of damage must have occurred on or before February 3, 2022.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">The
complaint shows it is is untimely based on the acts. The complaint identifies
two instances in which defendants accessed their computers—May 2020 and
September 2021 (¶ 12). Both occurred more than two years before plaintiffs
filed suit.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">The action may
be timely based on discovery of damage. The complaint alleges plaintiff
discovered the hacking scheme in November 2022 and suspected unlawful access as
early as March 2022. (¶ 14). The complaint does not plead facts showing what
damage was discovered on those dates, nor does it plead facts showing that no
damage occurred to be discovered. The allegations of the complaint do not show
the absence of damage and thus an untimely action.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">Defendant
suggests the court should grant the motion because plaintiff failed to
establish the claim’s timeliness under that part of § 1030(g). But defendant
shifts the burden. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense—the defendant
must show, based on the complaint’s allegations, that the action is untimely;
the plaintiff need not show that the complaint is timely. The complaint alleges
defendants remotely accessed plaintiff’s computer networks on several occasions
after the hacking. (¶ 13). That may qualify as damage that plaintiffs
discovered in 2022, within the two-year time period and timely under § 1030(g).
These facts do not establish that the claim is untimely.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;">Defendants
may find and present new facts showing the absence of damage and thus the
inapplicability of § 1030(g)’s date-of-discovery provision. In that case, only the
acts provision applies, making the complaint untimely. If so, defendants can
plead those facts in support of the affirmative defense in its Answer, then
perhaps move for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c). But in raising
limitations on a 12(b)(6), defendants must demonstrate that the facts pleaded
in the complaint establish that the complaint was untimely. It has failed to do
so.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt;"><br />
The motion is denied.</p>
<p><style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:auto;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-17830182954562024622024-03-06T07:01:00.000-08:002024-03-06T07:01:00.141-08:00Sample Answer--Essay # 1<p><u>Section A</u>: Median: 23; Mean: 21.8</p><p><u>Section B</u>: Median: 20; Mean: 20<span></span></p><a name='more'></a>
<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Garamond",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman \(Body CS\)"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Honorable Paula
Patrick v. The Daily Beast Co.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Garamond",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman \(Body CS\)"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">
and <i>Laura Bradley</i></span> </b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:auto;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> <br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The court should grant defendants’ motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6) and dismiss
plaintiff’s defamation claim with prejudice and without leave to amend.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim tests the legal or factual sufficiency of a pleading stating a claim for
relief. The court analyzes the four corners of the complaint, written
instruments attached as exhibits and made part of the pleading for all purposes
(FRCP 10(c)), and matters of which the court takes judicial notice. The court
may consider a writing not attached to the pleading if the pleading refers to
and relies on that writing. <i>Twombly</i>. If the court considers material
outside the pleading, it must convert the motion to one for summary judgment.
FRCP 12(d). The court therefore can consider the April 30 <i>Philadelphia
Inquirer</i> article in resolving the 12(b)(6), without converting the motion.
Although the complaint does not include the article as an exhibit, it quotes
and refers to it, identifying it as one of the sources defendants relied on for
their story. (¶¶ 26-27, 29). As with the magazine article in <i>Twombly</i>,
the court can view the entire article because the pleading mentions and uses
it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">A pleading asserting a defamation claim must
comport with FRCP 8(a)(2), requiring a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint provides the
defendant with “fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Twombly</i>; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Conley</i>. Under<i> Twombly</i>, as
affirmed in <i>Iqbal</i>, a complaint must contain sufficient nonconclusory
factual matter to raise a right to relief that is “plausible on its face.” It
must plead sufficient non-conclusory facts, taken as true, to plausibly suggest
an entitlement to relief. The plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Iqbal</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">.</span> The allegations must be more than
“neutral” or consistent with liability, such that they show a plausible
entitlement to relief. Stated differently, the allegations must show that relief
is more than possible (that the defendant could have engaged in wrongdoing)
although it need not be probable (more likely than not the defendant engaged in
wrongdoing). Labels, “bald” legal conclusions, and formulaic or threadbare
recitations of the elements of a claim are not entitled to a presumption of
truth. <i>Iqbal</i>. Non-conclusory allegations accepted as true must identify
a real-world transaction or occurrence, describing specific action by specific
individuals.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br />
The court examines well-pleaded, non-conclusory facts, taken as true, and
whether they state a plausible claim for relief, given the elements of the
substantive law. <i>Iqbal.</i> This “context-specific task” requires the
“reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense” to decide
whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged an entitlement to recovery. <i>Iqbal</i>;
<i>Twombly</i>. A plaintiff sufficiently pleads through direct factual
allegations and through factual allegations permitting reasonable inferences of
liability. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Iqbal</i>. The court draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the pleading party.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Defendants’ motion focuses on the element of
actual malice, that the defendant made the statements knowing they were false
or with </span>reckless disregard for their falsity. <i>Graboff</i>. Actual
malice means the defendant did not care about the truth of the statements. <i>McCafferty</i>.
Defendant must subjectively doubt the truth of the statements. <i>Tucker</i>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;">The
amended complaint fails to sufficiently allege actual malice. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;">The
complaint includes numerous allegations that the defendants’ statements were
knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly false (¶¶ 6, 8, 23, 27, 33, 35). But
these are conclusory allegations not entitled to a presumption of truth—these are
threadbare recitations of the “bald” legal conclusion sought, without
describing specific real-world transactions involving specific people.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;">The
nonconclusory facts allege three points: 1) Defendants published the story with
the intent to harm plaintiff (¶¶ 6, 37); 2) Defendants did no independent
investigation of the statements, relying on other sources, including the <i>Inquirer</i>
article (¶¶q<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> 29-31); and 3)
Defendants ignored the plaintiff’s denials. (¶¶ 33, 38). The complaint contains
no other nonconclusory allegations that defendants knew the report was false or
doubted its truth.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;">These
allegations do not plausibly show actual malice—they do not allow a reasonable
judge to conclude defendants acted with actual malice—under substantive law. First,
defendants’ intent or desire to injure plaintiff is irrelevant to actual malice;
actual malice is about defendants’ understanding of the truth of their
statements, not their ill will, malice, bad motive, or negative feelings
towards the plaintiff. <i>McCafferty</i>. Second, failure to investigate some
facts, without more, does not establish actual malice. Journalists may rely on
prior news reports in publishing a story; actual malice attaches only with
facts showing they subjectively doubted the truth of the prior reports on which
they relied. <i>Tucker</i>. This complaint contains no such additional facts,
so the allegations of failure to investigate do not plausible show actual
malice. Finally, a reporter’s refusal to accept a person’s denials does not plausible
show actual malice; denial alone does “not alert the conscientious reporter to
the likelihood that his statements are false or in error.” <i>Harte-Hankes</i>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;">The
court should dismiss with prejudice and without giving plaintiff leave to
replead.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in 63.0pt;">Plaintiff’s
claim is factually insufficient--<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">it
lacks enough non-conclusory facts necessary to show a plausible inference
defendants acted with actual malice. A court ordinarily should dismiss a
factually insufficient complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend; by
adding more of the right kind of facts, a plaintiff might be able to correct
the defects and plead a plausible claim. But plaintiff has filed three
insufficient complaints. She filed and withdrew a complaint in state court. The
court dismissed her original federal complaint. And the current amended
complaint continues to fail to state a plausible claim for recovery. Plaintiff’s
repeated failures show she does not have sufficient facts to plead a plausible
claim; the court need not give her another attempt.</span></p>
<p><style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:auto;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-84307831828666848262024-03-05T07:53:00.000-08:002024-03-05T12:58:37.353-08:00For return from break<p>Sorry for the delay in posting. Here is the <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/florida-international-university-1.m4a">Section A</a> and <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-45.m4a">Section B</a> audio from the Friday before break.</p><p>We will continue with <u>Amendments</u> for Wednesday and part of Thursday. No new reading until Thursday, but review the <u>Amendments</u> reading. Essay # 3 will likely post this Friday (March 8), due on Friday, March 15.</p><p><span> </span>• Be prepared to discuss the remaining <i>Foman</i> factors. What is the connection and distinction between undue delay and undue prejudice? What makes an amendment futile? How does relation back connect to futility? How can the court know that a proposed amendment is futile?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• Consider: In <i>Zielinski</i>, PPI moves for leave to
amend to change its answer to ¶ 5 to make clear it is not responsible
for the pier. What is Zielinski's argument for undue prejudice?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What is the purpose of relation back and how does it operate? What are the procedural frames in which it can be raised? </p><p><span> </span>• What are the underlying policies behind statutes of limitations? How does those policies connect to relation back?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• Consider the elements of relation back: How is notice created? What is the timing for that notice? What is the difference between "actual notice" and "imputed or constructive notice?" How might a new party obtain either kind?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What is a "mistake concerning the proper party's identity?" How does it apply to a Doe pleading?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-52522585565693635162024-02-22T07:26:00.000-08:002024-02-22T07:26:00.329-08:00Two final points on pleading<p>Two final points on pleading I forgot to mention in class. For your complete information:</p><p>• FRCP 55 controls what happens if a defending party fails to respond to a claim (by motion or responsive pleading). FRCP 55 allows for issuance of a default, which the court reduces to a default judgment. A default judgment has the same force and effect as a judgment entered following adversarial litigation and can be enforced the same way.</p><p>• FRCP 41 controls when a plaintiff has filed a complaint but does not wish to proceed. She can voluntarily dismiss the suit (some states refer to this as a "nonsuit"), ending the litigation on various terms.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-67971967834424130872024-02-21T08:49:00.000-08:002024-02-22T08:27:23.502-08:00For Friday<p>Wednesday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-42.m4a">Section A</a>; <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-43-1.m4a">Section B</a>. No class Thursday; to be made-up after break. Only 70 minutes on Friday. Essay # 1 due outside my office by the beginning of your respective class times. Essay # 2 due a the beginning of class Friday.</p><p>We turn to <b>Amendments</b>, the last piece of pleading. Prep everything for Friday. Remember to work off the new version of FRCP 15 on the blog, as well as the committee notes for the relevant changes. Remember that we already discussed how to choose between FRCP 15(a)(1)(A) and (B), so review those notes.</p><p><span> </span>• What might a party do in amending a pleading that states a claim for relief? What might a defending party do in amending a responsive pleading? Review the facts and procedure in <i>Zielinski </i>and <i>Krupski</i> and consider arguments around different possible pleadings.<br /></p><p><span> </span>• How do the 15(a)(1) time periods work? What is the latest a party can amend and what is the earliest?</p><p><span> </span>• When must a party look to FRCP 15(a)(2)? What should a party do if a pleading is improperly filed under FRCP 15? Consider whether the latest pleading is properly filed:<br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><u>Dec 3, 2022</u>: A files complaint against City, Chief of Police, and 7 officers</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><u>Apr. 29, 2023</u>: Parties confer: A agree to drop chief and 6 officers and proceed against city and 1 officer</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><u>Apr. 30, 2023</u>: Ct accepts agreement. Gives A ten days to file amendment.</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><u>May 7, 2023</u>: A files and serves Amended Complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><u>May 15, 2023</u>: X files and serves a 12(b)(6) motion</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><u>June 2, 2023</u>: A files and serves Second Amended Complaint, without requesting leave</p><p><span> </span>• What is the effect of the amended complaint and previously filed pleadings and motions?</p><p><span> </span>• How do amendments affect FRCP 7(a) designations for pleadings stating a claim and for responsive pleadings?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What should the last document be called?</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• A files a complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files an answer</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• A files a complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files an answer</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• A files a complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files __________</p><p><span> </span>• What should the last document be called?</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• A files a complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files a 12(b)(6)</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• A files a complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files a 12(b)(6), which the court denies</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files an answer</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• A files a complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files an answer</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• A files a complaint</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X files an answer</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>• X amends to file a _______</p><p><span> </span>• Do Winston's eight and ninth affirmative defenses have any force or effect?</p><p><span> </span>• How does FRCP 15(a)(2) connect to dismissals with or without prejudice?</p><p><span> </span>• What are the six considerations for leave in <i>Foman</i>?</p><p><span> </span>• Consider: In <i>Zielinski</i>, PPI moves for leave to amend to change its answer to ¶ 5 to make clear it is not responsible for the pier. What is Zielinski's argument for undue prejudice?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-36612782885761393382024-02-16T12:03:00.000-08:002024-02-16T12:03:18.445-08:00For Wednesday<p>Friday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-38.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-39.m4a">Section B</a>. Apologies for the delay in posting Essay # 2. Essay # 1 due in class on Thursday; Essay # 2 due in class on Friday. The instructions for formatting are in the Grading Information sheet included in the introductory blog posts from the beginning of the semester.</p><p>We dive into the weeds of FRCP 14 and the downstream claims in 14(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5). Work through <i>Holmes</i>; identify each claim and whether it can be included in the action. Consider the role that FRCP 18(a) plays in all of this.</p><p><span> </span>• What does the logical relationship require? What are its limits, according to <i>Jones</i>? Are Winston's counterclaims permissive or compulsory? Were Ford's counterclaims permissive or compulsory?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• Consider whether the counterclaims in the following case are permissive or compulsory:</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>Consumers Union publishes Consumer Reports Magazine. CR publishes a negative review of some stereo products made by Bose. Bose holds a press conference to announce plans to sue Consumers Union for trademark infringement, then files the lawsuit. Consumers Union wants to assert two counterclaims: Defamation (arising from false statements at the press conference) and Abuse of Process (alleging that the trademark itself is so frivolous as to be tortious.</p><p><span> </span>• What is the difference between an affirmative defense and a counterclaim? Can the same legal rules serve as both? Consider fraud and contributory/comparative negligence. What happens if a party mixes them up?</p><p>My plan is to finish <u>Reponsive Pleadings</u> on Wednesday, then move to <u>Amendments</u><i> </i>on Thursday and Friday.<br /></p><p><br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-75863593315991758842024-02-16T11:38:00.000-08:002024-02-16T11:38:09.203-08:00Essay # 2<b><i>Acrison, Inc. v. Anthony Rainone and Brach Eichler LLC</i></b>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;">Acrison,
Inc. (“Acrison”) files <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/acrison-complaint-essay-2.docx">this
complaint</a> in the District of New Jersey on February 3, 2024. It alleges one
count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
Defendants are Brach Eisler LLC (“Brach Eisler”), a law firm, and XDD, Inc.
(“XDD”), a computer services company.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The CFAA contains the following provision:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in;">18 U.S.C, § 1030(g): No action may be
brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the
date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Brach Eisler and XDD file a joint Motion to Dismiss under
FRCP 12(b)(6). They argue that the complaint is untimely, in that Acrison
failed to plead facts showing the complaint was timely filed.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In response to the motion, Acrison argues: 1) the statute of
limitations is an affirmative defense that cannot be raised on a 12(b)(6)
motion, and 2) if the issue can be raised on a motion to dismiss, the motion
should be denied.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>As the court, decide the motion.</b></p>
<p><style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859921 -1073711039 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-8451122461599163482024-02-15T09:01:00.000-08:002024-02-15T09:01:00.146-08:00Essay # 1 (Due Thursday, February 22)<p><b><i>Honorable Paula Patrick v. The Daily Beast Co.</i> and <i>Laura
Bradley</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;">Plaintiff
filed <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/amended-complaint.pdf">this amended
complaint</a> in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, asserting one count of False Light, arising from publication of
an article, authored by Bradley and published on the website The Daily Beast.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;">Beyond
<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/amended-complaint.pdf">the pleading</a>,
you have the following information:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><b><u>Published
News Reports</u> (bullet points indicate statements made in the stories):</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b><i><u>Daily Beast</u></i><u>, October 9, 2021</u></b>
(this is the story at issue and was attached to the Amended Complaint).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i><b>Q’Anon Linked Judge Rules in Unhinged War
Over Philly Columbus Statute; After a lawyer threatened to tear down a plywood
box covering the statute itself Judge Paula Patrick ruled that it must remain
visible to the public.</b></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>• Paula Patrick is a state trial court
judge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and an unsuccessful candidate for the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>• During her unsuccessful Supreme Court
bid, Judge Patrick participated in many campaign events. One event was a
40-minute video interview on <i>Up Front in the Prophetic</i> with QAnon
supporter Prophetess Francine Fodsick. During the interview, Patrick was asked
whether she was considering appearing at a Q-Anon-associated conference later
that year; she said she had not ruled it out.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>• QAnon supporters believe, without
evidence, in many conspiracies. One is that Donald Trump was elected President
to defeat a cabal of cannibalistic pedophiles working in the government.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>• Judge Patrick’s name appeared on a list
of speakers for the conference.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>• Judge Patrick has denied that she ever
planned to attend a QAnon-affiliated event and had no idea why she was listed
as a speaker.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>• In September 2021, Judge Patrick issued
a decision in a lawsuit about efforts to take down a statue of Christopher
Columbus in South Philadelphia. She ruled that the statute must remain up and
visible, rejecting suggestions that it could be covered up by boards.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>• This story cites reporting in the <i>Philadelphia
Inquirer</i>, ABC6 (a Philadelphia TV station), and CBS Philadelphia (same).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><b><i><u></u><span> </span><u>Philadelphia
Inquirer</u></i><u>, April 30, 2021</u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> <b> </b></span><b><i>Judge Denies Link to Q’Anon</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> <span> </span></span>• Judge Paula A. Patrick denied any link to
QAnon.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> <span> </span></span>• Judge Patrick did not attend a scheduled
conference associated with QAnon.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><b><u>Substantive
Legal Principles</u>:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><i>Graboff</i>:
False light imposes liability on a person who publishes material that is not
true, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with “actual
malice,” meaning with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its
falsity.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><i>McCafferty</i>:
Actual malice focuses on the defendant’s attitude towards the truth, not
towards the plaintiff. Actual malice does not mean the defendant acted with
malice, ill will, or bad motive towards the plaintiff or with intent to harm
the plaintiff. It means defendant did not care whether the published statements
were true—the defendant knew they were false or was reckless as to whether they
were false.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><i>Tucker</i>:
Actual malice requires that defendant doubt the truth of his statements.
Failure to investigate or confirm statements does not constitute actual malice,
absent some indication a journalist subjectively doubted the veracity of the
story. Reporters do not act with actual malice in relying on prior news
reports, absent facts showing they subjectively doubted the truth of those
prior reports.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><i>Harte-Hankes</i>:
The press need not accept a person’s denials, however vehement; such denials
are so commonplace in the world of charge and countercharge that they do not
alert the conscientious reporter to the likelihood that his statements are
false or in error.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><b><u>Procedural
Background</u>:</b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><b> </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>• This is the third complaint Judge Patrick
has filed. She filed in state court, then withdrew the complaint. She refiled
in federal court and the court dismissed her original federal complaint.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;">You are counsel for Daily
Beast and Bradley. You file a Joint Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), arguing
the complaint fails to sufficiently plead the element of actual malice. You attach copy of the April 30, 2021 <i>Philadelphia Inquirer</i> article and
ask the court to consider the article as part of the motion to dismiss.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in 45.0pt .75in;"> </p>
<b><span style="font-family: "Garamond",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman \(Body CS\)"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">For defendants, argue in support of the motion,
including why the court can consider the <i>Inquirer </i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>article and the appropriate terms of any
dismissal.</span></b>
<p><style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073697537 9 0 511 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859921 -1073711039 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-32163872183195724152024-02-15T08:22:00.000-08:002024-02-15T13:05:10.073-08:00For Friday<p>Thursday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-36.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-37.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 1 posted at noon. Essay # 2 posts at noon tomorrow. Section B meets in RDB 1000 tomorrow.</p><p>So a couple things to clarify:</p><p> <span> • </span>If the defendant denies the allegations in the complaint and has no affirmative defenses, it likely will not file a 12(c). There is a factual dispute and the case goes to discovery.</p><p><span> • That something could, logically, be either part of the claim or an affirmative defense usually is resolved before you file the complaint. The lawmakers (courts or judges) decided whether something is a claim or defense; you check the law and draft your pleadings accordingly.</span></p><p><span><span> </span>• There are, of course, rare cases in which that has not been decided--a statute does not make clear which it is. Now you have to make your best guess on your reading of the law as to which it is and plead accordingly, then the court will resolve the legal issue in this litigation. Again, this is the outlier case.</span><br /></p><p>Tomorrow, we turn to new claims:<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What rules govern in pleading additional claims? What happens in response to those additional claims? Who can those claims be brought against? What happened procedurally in <i>Jones</i>?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the common standard for bringing additional claims?</p><p>Be
ready to work through the following (this expands on the problem
Glannon pp. 246-47). Map out all the claims, decide what type they are,
and whether they must, can, or cannot be brought. (As always, assume
jurisdiction over each and focus only on the FRCP). Everything arises
from the deal between Holmes and Clear Code to produce some code for
Holmes. Consider the first procedural steps in all of this.<br /></p><p>• Holmes against Clear Code for breach of contract for failing to provide working code.</p><p>•
Holmes against Cosgrove, Clear Code's former president, for fraud in
the inducement for inducing Holmes to enter into the contract</p><p>• Clear Code against Holmes for non-payment on this contract.</p><p>• Clear Code against Holmes for non-payment on a prior job</p><p>• Cosgrove against Clear Code for indemnification of any judgment Cosgrove must pay to Holmes.</p><p>• Cosgrove against Clear Code for wrongful termination (Clear Code fired him after the Holmes deal went bad).</p><p>• Clear Code against Cosgrove to enforce a non-compete, to stop Cosgrove from working for a competitor</p><p>• Clear Code against its insurance provider, for indemnification under their insurance contract.</p><p>• Clear Code against Jasper for making bad code (Clear Code sub-contracted the Holmes job to Jasper).<br /></p><p>• Jasper against Clear Code for non-payment.</p><p>• Jasper against Clear Code for non-payment on a past job.</p><p>• Jasper against High Tech for selling a defective computer (which caused Jasper's bad code).</p><p>• Jasper against Holmes for Quantum Meruit (to recover the value of the work done on the project)</p><p>• Jasper against Holmes for Defamation (Holmes told people Jasper was a bad coder)</p><p>• Holmes against Jasper for Tortious Interference with his original deal with Clear Code.<br /></p><p><br />
</p><p> </p><p><br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-35195904685185871402024-02-14T09:16:00.000-08:002024-02-15T08:21:00.564-08:00For Thursday<p>Wednesday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-35.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/new-recording-4-1.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 1 will post at noon Thursday (tomorrow) and due at the beginning of class on Thursday, February 22. Essay # 2 will post at noon on Friday and due at the beginning of class on Friday, February 23.</p><p>The next two days will be spent on Affirmative Defenses and New Claims. I am going to give you stuff for both days now and advise you to prep all for tomorrow, although we will not get too far into new claims until Friday. So prep everything except FRCP 41 and 55.</p><p>For Affirmative defenses, call the definition we ended class with: "Allegations or statements of new matter, in opposition to a former pleading, which, admitting facts in such former pleading, shows cause why they should not have their ordinary legal effect." What does "they" refer to? What former pleading? What is the ordinary legal effect? Consider:</p><p><span> </span>• What affirmative defenses are available and where do they come from? What affirmative defenses did Winston include? What is wrong with how they were pleaded in <i>Winston</i>?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the difference between a fact being an element of a claim and an element of an affirmative defense? How do you figure out which something is? How does it affect pleading?</p><p><span> </span>• How could a fact be part of a claim or defense and how does it affect pleading in the following? Consider how pleading is affected by whether facts are part of the claim or the defense:<br /></p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Debt: 3 facts: 1) Money borrowed; 2) Money due; 3) Money paid or not</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>• Sexual Battery: 1) Sex; 2) Consent or not</p><p><span> </span>• How did Winston arguably err in his consent defense? See ¶ 49 and the affirmative defenses.</p><p><span> </span>• What is the connection between 12(b)(6) and 8(c)? What are the procedural mechanisms for a defendant ask the court to decide on an affirmative defense? Consider the example of a statute of limitations defense?</p><p><style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859921 -1073711039 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
mso-font-kerning:0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-60313100615016776602024-02-09T11:36:00.000-08:002024-02-09T11:36:54.018-08:00Issue preclusion in the Trump § 3 litigation<p>If you listened to yesterday's arguments in the litigation attempting to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado, you would hear a brief cameo from issue preclusion.</p><p>Colorado made a legal determination (about the scope of § 3) and factual finding (Trump engaged in insurrection), in an action to which Trump was a party (remember he intervened). Those legal and factual conclusions may have preclusive effect in proceedings to exclude him in other states. The issue was litigated and resolved, it was necessary to the judgment, and Trump had a full-and-fair opportunity to litigate it. Some Justices raised the concern that this would allow one state court--the first one to address the issue--to exclude a candidate from the ballot in all states. Remember that preclusion applies between states and between states and federal.</p><p>Trump's attorney identified an out, at least in this case: Colorado does not recognize non-mutual preclusion. Since any new state is a different party from Trump, preclusion would not apply. And Court # 2 applies the preclusion rules from Court # 1--giving the prior decision the same preclusive effect the issuing court would have given its decision. So Colorado's determination that Trump engaged in insurrection would not bind, say, an Illinois court considering whether to exclude Trump from its ballot.</p><p>The Court seems likely to say states cannot keep candidates off ballots for federal office, so this is moot. But see it as a surrounding issue.</p><p>Civ Pro really is all around us.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-21737769582240158642024-02-09T11:32:00.000-08:002024-02-09T11:32:55.734-08:00For Wednesday<p>Friday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/sw-53rd-ave-4.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-32.m4a">Section B</a>. Essay # 1 will be posted on Thursday, February 15 and due in class on Thursday, February 22. If anyone wants to send a picture of the flowchart from the board, I can post it.<br /></p><p>We turn to <u>Respsonsive Pleadings</u>. As we will see, there are three pieces to a responsive pleading: 1) Failure-of-Proof Defenses; 2) Affirmative Defenses; and 3) Additional Claims. For Wednesday, we will focus on # 1. Prep FRCP 7(a), 8(b), 10, 12(c), and 12(f), along with <i>Zielinski</i> and <i>King Vision</i>. Work through the Answer in <i>Kinsmann</i> and how the defendant offers different responses to different allegations.</p><p><span> </span>• What are the defendant's responsive options? How does<i> </i>the <i>Kinsmann</i> answer use each and does it do so properly?</p><p><span> </span>• Must the defendant explain a response?</p><p><span> </span>• What was wrong with the defendant's initial response to ¶ 4 in <i>Zielinski</i>?</p><p><span> </span>• What is the remedy for an improper defense?</p><p><span> </span>• How can each party use FRCP 12(c) in response to the defendant's responses to the allegations in the complaint?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-51358995672185406232024-02-08T08:40:00.000-08:002024-02-08T14:34:52.030-08:00For Friday<p>Thursday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-30.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-31-1.m4a">Section B</a>.<br /></p><p>Again, no new reading; review everything for <u>Future of Federal Pleading</u>.</p><p><span> </span>• Do the application of the pleading analysis for <i>VOA</i> and <i>Godin</i>.</p><p><span> </span>• What is the problem with the Court looking for and finding an "obvious alternative explanation" for the allegations in the complaint?</p><p><span> </span>• What does <i>Johnson</i> suggest about what a plaintiff must do in his complaint?<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-11532170590179387692024-02-08T05:57:00.000-08:002024-02-08T05:57:34.292-08:00Sample Essay<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><b><i>I expect Essay # 1 to post sometime next week and Essay # 2 to come shortly after. <br /></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><b><i>Below is a sample essay and answer. Because we did not cover Rule 11 in detail, the analysis may not make much sense; don't worry about that. The point is to show you what the essay questions will look like and how you should approach your analysis and writing. Please refer to the post on writing tips for more.</i></b> <br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;">You are counsel
for the plaintiff in <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/macaque-copyright-1.pdf"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Naruto v. Slater</i></a>. The defendants
file a motion to dismiss the complaint; as part of that motion, they request
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The motion states that the complaint
violates Rule 11(b)(1) and Rule 11(b)(2); it seeks sanctions from Naruto as plaintiff; PETA,
as next friend; and you, as counsel. The motion specifically requests attorney's fees as the appropriate sanction.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;">For purposes of this problem:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><span> </span>• The defendant's motion cites <i>Wiggens</i>, Ninth Circuit precedent holding that several federal statutes do not apply to non-humans absent clear congressional statement. The Copyright Act was not among the statutes <i>Wiggens</i> mentioned or discussed.<br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;">Explain why Rule
11 sanctions should not be imposed on you or on your client. <span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"><b><u>Sample Answer</u>:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;">Defendants’ motion
for Rule 11 sanctions should be denied, because nothing in the Complaint
violated FRCP 11(b) and because the defendants did not seek sanctions in
accordance with the required procedures of FRCP 11(c).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;">By signing and filing a paper, such as a Complaint, with the
court, a party and its attorney certify certain things about the paper, based
on the best of their knowledge and following an inquiry “reasonable under the
circumstances.” FRCP 11(b). Defendants identify two alleged defects in the Complaint.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in;">A party may not submit a paper for “<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">any improper purpose, such as
to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation</span>.” FRCP 11(b)(1). <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nothing indicates plaintiff this Complaint to harass Slater or any other
defendant or to delay or increase the cost of litigation. The Complaint was
filed to establish the legal rights of a non-human animal to his creative work.
To be sure, the lawsuit furthers the political efforts of People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA,” one of the next friends bringing this
action) to champion the “principle that </span>as sentient beings, animals have
rights that are or should be recognized in law and protected by courts.”
(Compl. ¶ 18). But filing an otherwise-meritorious legal
action with underlying political goals does not constitute an improper purpose.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;">"[T]<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">he claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” FRCP 11(b)(2). The Advisory
Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments recognize that the rule establishes an
objective standard for when an argument for changing the law is nonfrivolous;
the point is to “eliminate any ‘empty-head pure-heart’ justification for
patently frivolous arguments.” But the rule
should not be read “to chill an attorney's enthusiasm or creativity in pursuing
legal theories.” ACN, 1983 Amendments. It requires some indication that
an attorney has researched and found support for the arguments. And while plaintiff need not identify an argument for a change in law, courts should
show greater tolerance for identified efforts. ACN, 1993 Amendments.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No controlling law bars the copyright claims in this case.
The Copyright Act does not expressly preclude protections for rights for
non-human animals or civil actions by non-human animals to enforce those
rights, and no binding (or non-binding) case law interprets Act to
preclude such rights. While the motion points to <i>Wiggens</i> as binding Ninth Circuit
authority holding that Congress must expressly provide non-human animals with a right
to sue under a statute (concededly absent from the Copyright Act),
the Copyright Act was not among the statutes <i>Wiggens </i>addressed for
that point. Moreover, the Complaint recognized that this claim was
“novel," but that the language of the Act was sufficiently broad to allow such
protections (¶ 5). Plaintiff, his next friends, and counsel understood the current
state of the law and explicitly and knowingly argued for changes to the
law.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Even if the court finds that the Complaint violated FRCP
11(b)(1) or (2), sanctions are not warranted in this case. FRCP 11(c)(2), as
amended in 1993, imposes procedural obligations ton sanctions motions, which defendants failed to follow.<br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A“motion for sanctions must be made separately from
any other motion,” FRCP 11(c)(2); it cannot be included in a broader motion or
made as an additional request for relief in another motion. ACN, 1993
Amendments. That separate motion must be served on the opposing
party, but may not be filed unless, after 21 days, the opposing party has not
withdrawn or otherwise cured the sanctionable conduct. FRCP 11(c)(2); ACN, 1993
Amendments. The Committee describes this as a “safe harbor,” designed to
protect a party against sanctions unless, after given sufficient time and
opportunity, the party chooses to stand by its position. ACN, 1993 Amendments.
The 21-day clock begins on service of the motion. ACN, 1993 Amendments.
And many courts require strict adherence to the safe harbor. The safe
harbor was intended to protect litigants from sanctions wherever possible, so
as to avoid chilling attorneys from pursuing vigorous advocacy. <i>Roth</i> (10th Cir.). <i>Roth</i> held, for
example, that a detailed letter providing informal notice of intent to seek
sanctions did not trigger the 21-day cure period; only the formal motion sufficed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Defendants' motion for sanctions ran afoul of FRCP
11(c)(2) in two respects. Defendants did not file a separate motion for
sanctions, instead folding the request for sanctions with the motion to
dismiss. They then improperly filed and served that consolidated motion
on the same day, rather than complying with the safe harbor by serving the
motion and giving the plaintiff 21 days to withdraw or cure. They never granted plaintiff the required sufficient and meaningful opportunity to withdraw or cure its
papers prior to filing the motion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Finally, even if the court believes that the procedural
defects in the motion do not preclude sanctions, the court should proceed with two points in mind. First,
the court is not obligated to impose sanctions for a violation; FRCP 11(c)(1)
provides that a court “may impose” a sanction, leaving it discretion
not to impose any sanction. The Advisory Committee identifies a number of
considerations to guide the court’s discretion. ACN, 1993 Amendments. Given the
novelty of plaintiff's legal argument here and the plaintiff’s express awareness of
that novelty and the need to adopt a broader interpretation of copyright law,
sanctions are particularly unwarranted.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 9.0pt .25in 27.0pt .5in; text-autospace: none;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Second, a monetary sanction cannot be imposed against a
represented party for a violation of FRCP 11(b)(2)’s requirements that claims
be well-grounded in the law. Thus, any monetary sanction (whether attorney’s
fees or money paid to the court) cannot run against Naruto or his next friends,
only against counsel.</span></p>
<p><style>@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;
mso-font-alt:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:modern;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 134217746 0 131231 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:647 2 0 0 159 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:modern;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 134217746 0 131231 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Garamond",serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-79376495801801194882024-02-07T08:27:00.000-08:002024-02-07T16:21:25.184-08:00For Thursday<p>Wednesday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-28.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-29-1.m4a">Section B</a>. </p><p>No new reading, but review what you did for today<i>.</i></p><p><i><span> </span>• </i>We<i> </i>can think of plausibility as a baseline--one's initial, common-sense reaction to some facts. How does this work in <i>Swierkiewicz</i> and <i>Morgan</i>?</p><p><span> </span>• What determines whether the allegations, taken as true, state a plausible claim?</p><p><span> </span>• Is this legal or factual insufficiency and what should be the terms of dismissal?<br /></p><p><i><span> </span>• </i>What makes an allegation conclusory or nonconclusory (hint: Note how <i>Iqbal</i> describes not-presumed-as-true conclusions)? Consider <i>Swierkiewicz</i> and a car accident case--what would be a conclusory allegation in each and what would be a nonconclusory allegation?</p><p><i><span> </span>• </i>What does it mean that this is a context-specific inquiry? What is the context of <i>Twombly</i> and <i>Iqbal</i>? What happens to the pleading standard if you change the context?</p><p><span> </span>• Be ready to discuss the sufficiency or insufficiency of the complaints in <i>Twombly</i>, <i>Iqbal</i>, <i>Godin</i>, and <i>VOA</i>. Be ready to point to specific ¶s in the complaints that establish the claim.<br /></p><p><i><span> </span> </i><br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-67249818135231052202024-02-01T08:32:00.000-08:002024-02-03T12:56:26.420-08:00For Wednesday<p>Thursday audio--<a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-25-1.m4a">Section A</a>, <a href="https://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/modesto-a.-maidique-campus-26.m4a">Section B</a>. See everyone at the symposium tomorrow. A sign-in sheet for each section will be available.</p><p>We continue with <u>Heightened Pleading</u>.</p><p><span> </span>• Think about possible justifications for subject fraud, mistake, and securities fraud (and only those) to heightened pleading and the counter-arguments for why the rules are not justified. </p><p><span> </span>• What is the argument for treating civil rights cases
under FRCP 9(b) and why did SCOTUS reject them? What does the Court do
with the argument that civil rights cases raise similar problems to
fraud claims?</p><p>Then move to <u>Future of Federal Pleading</u>; read everything for Wednesday, as this will take us through most of the week.</p><p><span> </span>• Focus on <i>Twombly</i> and <i>Iqbal</i> and how they changed (or did not change) the meaning of FRCP 8(a)(2). Does any part of <i>Conley</i> survive? What is the pleading standard after <i>Twombly</i> and <i>Iqbal</i>?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• What motivates higher pleading? Can what the Court said about policy arguments in <i>Swierkiewicz </i>be reconciled with <i>Twombly</i> and <i>Iqbal</i>'s concerns?</p><p><span> </span>• What are "conclusory facts" and how are they handled on a 12(b)(6)?<br /></p><p><span> </span>• Analyze the complaints in <i>VOA</i> and <i>Godin</i> under the <i>Twombly</i>/<i>Iqbal</i> standard and determine whether they are sufficient.<br /></p>Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4635819071741438198.post-87687110165100525602024-01-31T16:36:00.000-08:002024-02-01T08:23:59.629-08:00Rule 11 and AI (Sami Sumer)<span style="font-family: inherit;">The linked Bloomberg Law article brings attention to yet another attorney caught citing to a non-existent case for a legal brief. ChatGPT suggested the fake case to the plaintiff's attorney. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit referred the attorney to the court's grievance panel, holding that "[t]he brief presents a false statement of law to this Court, and it appears that Attorney Lee made no inquiry, much less the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent, into the validity of the arguments she presented."<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Park v. Kim</i>, No. 22-2057, 2024 WL 332478, at *1, *4 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2024).</span><div class="elementToProof" style="-moz-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span color="rgb(0, 0, 0) !important" data-ogsc="rgb(0, 0, 0)" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 1.2;"><br /></span></div><div class="elementToProof" style="-moz-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span color="rgb(0, 0, 0) !important" data-ogsc="rgb(0, 0, 0)" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 1.2;">To satisfy the reasonable inquiry required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), the attorney could have easily looked up the case herself, which was only one of two cited in the delayed reply brief.<i> Park</i>, 2024 WL 332478, at *3. In doing so, she would quickly realize the case was fake and would also dodge the Rule 11(b)(2) violation by simply not using it. It is comically tragic that the court was able to quote from a district decision issued within its own circuit last year because that opinion also dealt with attorneys presenting cases that did not exist.<i> See Mata v. Avianca, Inc.</i>, No. 22CV01461(PKC), 2023 WL 4114965, at *1, *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 22,2023). It appears a new body of procedural law is being created to clean up the mess left by overreliance on underdeveloped tools.</span></div><div class="elementToProof" style="-moz-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span color="rgb(0, 0, 0) !important" data-ogsc="rgb(0, 0, 0)" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 1.2;"><br /></span></div><div class="elementToProof" style="-moz-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span color="rgb(0, 0, 0) !important" data-ogsc="rgb(0, 0, 0)" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 1.2;">The <a href=" https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/ny-lawyer-faces-possible-sanctions-for-citing-phony-chatgpt-case">linked article</a> includes a downloadable PDF of the appellate decision.</span></div><br />Howard Wassermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13297579864339850414noreply@blogger.com