One-Way Fee Shifting after Summary Judgment

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Vanderbilt Law Review Pub Date : 2016-09-29 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2845627
Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Cameron T. Norris
{"title":"One-Way Fee Shifting after Summary Judgment","authors":"Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Cameron T. Norris","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2845627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"New, defendant-friendly discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on December 1, 2015. Although the discovery amendments created more controversy than perhaps anything the rulemakers have done in recent memory, defense-side advocates are pressing a still more ambitious proposal: to outright flip who pays for discovery, from the party who produces the discovery to the party who requests it. We share the view of most commentators that so-called \"requester pays\" is too extreme. But we also think the current regime — so called \"producer pays\" — errs too far in the other direction (even after the new amendments to the rules). In this article, we rely on economic analysis to offer a middle way: to ask plaintiffs to pay the cost of responding to their discovery requests only if they do not find anything trial worthy in those requests and lose their cases on summary judgment. Although Congress certainly has the power to implement our proposal, we believe that the rulemakers may be able to do so on their own as well.","PeriodicalId":47503,"journal":{"name":"Vanderbilt Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vanderbilt Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2845627","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

New, defendant-friendly discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on December 1, 2015. Although the discovery amendments created more controversy than perhaps anything the rulemakers have done in recent memory, defense-side advocates are pressing a still more ambitious proposal: to outright flip who pays for discovery, from the party who produces the discovery to the party who requests it. We share the view of most commentators that so-called "requester pays" is too extreme. But we also think the current regime — so called "producer pays" — errs too far in the other direction (even after the new amendments to the rules). In this article, we rely on economic analysis to offer a middle way: to ask plaintiffs to pay the cost of responding to their discovery requests only if they do not find anything trial worthy in those requests and lose their cases on summary judgment. Although Congress certainly has the power to implement our proposal, we believe that the rulemakers may be able to do so on their own as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
简易判决后的单向费用转移
《联邦民事诉讼规则》新的有利于被告的证据开示修正案于2015年12月1日生效。尽管证据开示修正案引发的争议可能比规则制定者近期所做的任何事情都要多,但辩方的倡导者正在推动一项更有雄心的提议:彻底改变谁为证据开示买单,从提供证据开示的一方转向请求证据开示的一方。我们同意大多数评论者的观点,即所谓的“请求者付费”太极端了。但我们也认为,目前的制度——所谓的“生产者付费”——在另一个方向上走得太远了(即使是在对规则进行了新的修订之后)。在本文中,我们依靠经济分析提供了一条中间道路:只有当原告在这些请求中没有发现任何值得审判的东西并且在简易判决中败诉时,才要求他们支付回应他们的发现请求的费用。虽然国会当然有权力实施我们的提议,但我们相信,规则制定者也可以自己这样做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is an online forum designed to advance scholarly discussion. En Banc offers professors, practitioners, students, and others an opportunity to respond to articles printed in the Vanderbilt Law Review. En Banc permits extended discussion of our articles in a way that maintains academic integrity and provides authors with a quicker approach to publication. When reexamining a case “en banc” an appellate court operates at its highest level, with all judges present and participating “on the bench.” We chose the name “En Banc” to capture this spirit of focused review and provide a forum for further dialogue where all can be present and participate.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Wickedness: Managing Complex Systems and Climate Change Formal Justice and Judicial Precedent Rights, Wrongs, and Recourse in the Law of Torts Discovery Cost Allocation, Due Process, and the Constitution's Role in Civil Litigation Judging Law in Election Cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1