An Information-Forcing Approach to the Motion to Dismiss

IF 3 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Legal Analysis Pub Date : 2013-12-01 DOI:10.1093/JLA/LAT002
S. Issacharoff, G. Miller
{"title":"An Information-Forcing Approach to the Motion to Dismiss","authors":"S. Issacharoff, G. Miller","doi":"10.1093/JLA/LAT002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes a new approach to the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The idea works as follows. Defendant moves to dismiss exactly as under current practice. Plaintiff either responds to the motion, thus submitting the matter for decision, or files an affidavit proposing a plan of targeted discovery. After receiving defendant’s response, the court approves, rejects, or revises the proposed discovery plan. If the judge allows discovery, defendant either withdraws the motion or produces the information. If defendant withdraws the motion, the litigation proceeds in the usual way. If defendant continues the motion the parties engage in targeted discovery. The court then reviews the motion taking account of information which either party brings to the court’s attention, including information produced in discovery. If the court grants the motion, the case is dismissed and plaintiff pays defendant’s reasonable fees and costs associated with the motion and associated discovery. If the court denies the motion, the case continues and defendant pays plaintiff’s reasonable fees and costs. Our proposal would incentivize both parties to reveal information pertinent to the court’s decision. It promises to improve the operation of the motion to dismiss regardless of the substantive standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of the claims for relief.","PeriodicalId":45189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLA/LAT002","RegionNum":1,"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: 11

Abstract

This article proposes a new approach to the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The idea works as follows. Defendant moves to dismiss exactly as under current practice. Plaintiff either responds to the motion, thus submitting the matter for decision, or files an affidavit proposing a plan of targeted discovery. After receiving defendant’s response, the court approves, rejects, or revises the proposed discovery plan. If the judge allows discovery, defendant either withdraws the motion or produces the information. If defendant withdraws the motion, the litigation proceeds in the usual way. If defendant continues the motion the parties engage in targeted discovery. The court then reviews the motion taking account of information which either party brings to the court’s attention, including information produced in discovery. If the court grants the motion, the case is dismissed and plaintiff pays defendant’s reasonable fees and costs associated with the motion and associated discovery. If the court denies the motion, the case continues and defendant pays plaintiff’s reasonable fees and costs. Our proposal would incentivize both parties to reveal information pertinent to the court’s decision. It promises to improve the operation of the motion to dismiss regardless of the substantive standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of the claims for relief.
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
驳回动议的信息强制方法
本文提出了一种新的方法,以12(b)(6)动议驳回。其工作原理如下。被告完全按照现行惯例提出驳回诉讼。原告要么对动议作出回应,从而将此事提交裁决,要么提交一份宣誓书,提出一项有针对性的证据开示计划。在收到被告的答复后,法院批准、拒绝或修改所提议的证据开示计划。如果法官允许发现,被告要么撤回动议,要么提供信息。如果被告撤回动议,诉讼照常进行。如果被告继续提出动议,双方将进行定向证据开示。然后,法院考虑到任何一方提请法院注意的信息,包括在发现中提供的信息,审查该动议。如果法院批准动议,案件被驳回,原告支付被告与动议和相关发现相关的合理费用和成本。如果法院驳回动议,案件继续进行,被告支付原告合理的费用和成本。我们的提议将激励双方披露与法院裁决有关的信息。它承诺改善驳回动议的运作,而不管用于评估救济要求的充分性的实质性标准是什么。
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
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Putting Freedom of Contract in its Place Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models How Election Rules Affect Who Wins Remote Work and City Decline: Lessons From the Garment District How Crime Shapes Insurance and Insurance Shapes Crime
×
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