FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W340066621> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W340066621 startingPage "379" @default.
• W340066621 abstract "CORPORATIONS and their counsel face special problems complying with new disclosure rules mandated by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly complex litigation and especially with respect to disclosure of documents. While there are problems, there also is a workable strategy for prepositioning corporation to meet mandatory disclosure obligations economically and efficiently. In 1993, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to require mandatory prediscovery disclosure of witnesses, documents and certain other information. The new rules apply to all civil actions filed after December 1, 1993, and, to extent practicable, to cases than pending. Proponents of new disclosure regime touted it as a means of dealing with problems of excessive cost and delay disposition of civil cases federal courts. The mandatory disclosure provisions added to Rule 26 were most controversial and hotly debated of 1993 rules changes. According to Notes of Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, A major purpose of revision [of Rule 26] is to accelerate exchange of information about case and to eliminate paperwork requesting such information, and rule should be applied a manner to achieve those objectives.(1) Although widely heralded as portending a sea change discovery practice federal courts, many practitioners paid little heed when new rules were promulgated. And now, despite a year and a half of experience under new rules, it is still too early to draw any hard conclusions as to whether drafters' goals of reducing litigation costs and delay have been, or can be, achieved. In July of 1994 a subcommittee of American Bar Association Section of Litigation noted that rules had not been operation long enough to have worked their way into fabric of federal civil litigation. subcommittee's report stated, the jury is still 'out.'(2) The same probably can be said July of 1995. New Rule 26(a)(1) begins by stating, Except to extent otherwise stipulated or directed by order or local rule ... Taking advantage of discretion granted them, about half of 94 federal district courts have chosen to opt-out of mandatory disclosure provisions, according to a survey as of March 1, 1995, by Research Division of Federal Judicial Center.(3) But of 49 districts that have not implemented disclosure, five require initial disclosure under local rules, orders or plans adopted pursuant to Civil Justice Reform Act of 1991 (CJRA), 28 U.S.C. [sections][sections] 471-482, and 15 districts give individual judges authority to require initial In only 28 districts, survey states, are all cases routinely exempt from rules on Of 14 largest districts terms of number of judges, six have implemented Rule 26(a)(1), two require disclosure by local rule or CJRA plan, four authorize individual judges to order it specific cases, and two opted out. Focusing on Rule 26(a)(1), six of 14 largest districts have implemented this subsection of rule. Two additional courts require initial disclosure by local rule or CJRA plan. Although there are many similarities among mandatory disclosure provisions implemented by various courts, there also are sharp differences--a patchwork picture.(4) Thus, practitioners and their corporate clients now and for foreseeable future face a patchwork of different discovery obligations, depending on federal district court which case is venued, as well perhaps as individual judges to which a case is assigned. Indeed, ABA report concludes that present time and until at least 1999, continued variations among districts are expected to create a variety of types, amounts and scopes of mandatory disclosure. The Federal Judicial Center survey summarizes situation this table, which also includes implementation of Rule 26(a)(2), disclosure of expert testimony; Rule 26(a)(3), pretrial disclosure of evidence; Rule 26(d), timing and sequence of discovery; and Rule 26(f), meeting of counsel and written discovery plan: Table 1 In general, Table 1 suggests classifying courts as opting in and opting out of Rule 26's requirements over-simplifies their responses to amended rule and may understate extent to which parties will encounter disclosure requirements federal courts. …" @default.
• W340066621 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W340066621 creator A5026748906 @default.
• W340066621 date "1995-07-01" @default.
• W340066621 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W340066621 title "Solving the Corporation's Dilemma: How to Comply with Mandatory Disclosure" @default.
• W340066621 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W340066621 type Work @default.
• W340066621 sameAs 340066621 @default.
• W340066621 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W340066621 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W340066621 hasAuthorship W340066621A5026748906 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C2778348171 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C2778496695 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C2780858371 @default.
• W340066621 hasConcept C538833194 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C111472728 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C138885662 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C144133560 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C17744445 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C199539241 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C2778348171 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C2778496695 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C2780858371 @default.
• W340066621 hasConceptScore W340066621C538833194 @default.
• W340066621 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W340066621 hasLocation W3400666211 @default.
• W340066621 hasOpenAccess W340066621 @default.
• W340066621 hasPrimaryLocation W3400666211 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W1516083183 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W155065343 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W1555227481 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W1567567431 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W1769079981 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W1949961897 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W1982492010 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W2270495417 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W2272499996 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W234491603 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W2355748401 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W2762024057 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W2978598719 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W2993094259 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W301443540 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W3045381967 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W3208927229 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W327462045 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W605454580 @default.
• W340066621 hasRelatedWork W761058027 @default.
• W340066621 hasVolume "62" @default.
• W340066621 isParatext "false" @default.
• W340066621 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W340066621 magId "340066621" @default.
• W340066621 workType "article" @default.