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
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).