13.10.2014 Views

Assignment Sheet no. 2 - Hastings College of the Law

Assignment Sheet no. 2 - Hastings College of the Law

Assignment Sheet no. 2 - Hastings College of the Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Civil Procedure I<br />

Spring 2013<br />

R. Marcus<br />

<strong>Assignment</strong> <strong>Sheet</strong> <strong>no</strong>. 2<br />

Feb. 18<br />

Feb. 19<br />

Presidents' Day Holiday<br />

Enforcement <strong>of</strong> discovery obligations: pp. 422-29; FRCP<br />

26(a)(1)(A)(iii); 26(e); 37.<br />

Feb. 20 Introductory Overview <strong>of</strong> Adjudication: pp. 471-76;<br />

523-31; 592-94; 430-34; FRCP 26(a)(3); Buffalo<br />

Creek pp. 264-65 (238-39) I intend to introduce<br />

this material in lecture format, inviting any<br />

questions you have.<br />

Feb. 20<br />

RECAP on discovery, 3:30 to 4:30 in Room B<br />

Feb. 21 Summary judgment initial showing: pp. 434-40; FRCP 56.<br />

Rule 56 was reorganized in 2010, with <strong>the</strong> result<br />

that <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong> provisions have been moved around.<br />

One <strong>of</strong> your tasks will be to link up what's in <strong>the</strong><br />

cases with where <strong>the</strong> provisions are <strong>no</strong>w in <strong>the</strong><br />

rule. To aid you in doing that, a Rule 56 Cheat<br />

<strong>Sheet</strong> is attached to this assignment sheet as an<br />

Appendix. COURT VISIT MEMOS DUE<br />

Feb. 25 pp. 440-54<br />

Feb. 26 Determining if summary judgment is warranted: pp. 455-<br />

70; The <strong>no</strong>tes after <strong>the</strong>se cases are quite long,<br />

and you might pay particular attention to <strong>no</strong>tes 2,<br />

7, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15<br />

Feb. 27<br />

Feb. 28<br />

Judgment as a matter <strong>of</strong> law: pp. 594-611, FRCP 50(a)<br />

and (b) (Focus on <strong>the</strong> analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence; I<br />

expect to introduce and try to explain <strong>the</strong><br />

analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Seventh Amendment issues ra<strong>the</strong>r<br />

than proceeding through that topic in questionand-answer<br />

format.)<br />

Marcus out <strong>of</strong> town<br />

March 4 pp. 611-23<br />

March 4<br />

(Extra hour at 1:10 p.m. in Room where Con. <strong>Law</strong><br />

regularly meets) Motion for a new trial: pp. 632-<br />

39; 643-48; FRCP 59; 60(b); 61. Note that I am<br />

<strong>no</strong>t assigning pp. 639-43, and that I do <strong>no</strong>t intend<br />

to focus on FRCP 50(c), (d), and (e). If you want<br />

to read up on that, feel free to do so.


CP1#2.WPD<br />

2<br />

March 5 Remittitur and Additur: pp. 648-61<br />

March 6 Form <strong>of</strong> verdict: pp. 661-72; FRCP 49 and 51<br />

March 7<br />

Marcus out <strong>of</strong> town<br />

March 11-15<br />

Spring Break<br />

March 18<br />

Juror impeachment <strong>of</strong> verdict: pp. 672-79; Fed. R. Evid.<br />

606(b) (p. 678 n.5)<br />

ADJUDICATION RECAP at about this point -- probably at 3:30<br />

p.m. on Wed. March 20. <strong>Assignment</strong> <strong>Sheet</strong> No. 3 to be sent<br />

out in time for completion <strong>of</strong> this material.<br />

APPENDIX<br />

Cheat <strong>Sheet</strong> on Rearrangement <strong>of</strong> Rule 56<br />

p. 430, line 3: Reference to Rule 56(c) should <strong>no</strong>w be to<br />

Rule 56(a).<br />

p. 430-31: Reference to Rule 56(a) should <strong>no</strong>w be to Rule<br />

56(b).<br />

Adickes (pp. 434 et seq.): The references to former Rule<br />

56(e) should be compared to current Rule 56(c); <strong>the</strong> 1963<br />

amendments are implicit in <strong>the</strong> current rule provisions.<br />

p. 436, 1st paragraph line 4: Reference to Rule 56(c)<br />

should <strong>no</strong>w be to Rule 56(a).<br />

p. 436, 2d paragraph, last line: Reference to Rule 56(f)<br />

should be to Rule 56(d) and perhaps (e)(1).<br />

p. 440, last line before Celotex: Reference to Rule 56(f)<br />

should be to Rule 56(d) and perhaps (e)(1).<br />

Celotex (p. 440 et seq.): Again, references to former Rule<br />

56(e) should be compared to current Rule 56(c).<br />

p. 441, 3d paragraph, line 3: Reference to Rule 56(c)<br />

should be to Rule 56(a).<br />

p. 442, <strong>the</strong> full paragraph, line 10, and lines 12 & 13:<br />

Reference to Rule 56(a) and (b) should be to Rule 56(c).<br />

pp. 442-44: References to Rule 56(e) here seem mainly<br />

historical; references to Rule 56(c) should <strong>no</strong>w refer to<br />

Rule 56(a).


CP1#2.WPD<br />

3<br />

p. 444, second full paragraph, line 6: Reference to Rule<br />

56(f) should <strong>no</strong>w refer to Rule 56(d), and perhaps also<br />

(e)(1).<br />

p. 447, ftn. 3: References to Rule 56(e) refer to current<br />

56(c), and references to Rule 56(f) refer to current 56(d)<br />

and perhaps (e)(1).<br />

p. 453, <strong>no</strong>te 8: The reference to Rule 56(f) should apply to<br />

Rule 56(d) and perhaps (e)(1).<br />

p. 454, <strong>no</strong>te 11, first line: The reference to Rule 56(c)<br />

should <strong>no</strong>w refer to Rule 56(a).<br />

p. 459, 2st full paragraph, line 9: Reference to Rule 56(f)<br />

should <strong>no</strong>w be to 56(d).<br />

p. 464, <strong>no</strong>te 8, second paragraph, line 6: Reference to Rule<br />

56(c) should <strong>no</strong>w refer to Rule 56(a).<br />

p. 466, <strong>no</strong>te 11: References to Rule 56(e) should <strong>no</strong>w refer<br />

to Rule 56(c).<br />

p. 467, <strong>no</strong>te 14, last line: Reference to Rule 56(g) should<br />

be to Rule 56(h).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!