« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Facebook Message Exchange Corroborated by Substance of Contemporaneous Phone Conversation with Alleged Sender Is Sufficiently Authenticated — Statement of Unhappiness (“Life Is Hell”) = 803(3) State of Mind

Download PDF

Lowery v. State,

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

First Impression — Removal — Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Remand Orders: Notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), Court of Appeals Has Jurisdiction to Review Remand Order Citing §1447(e) Where That Statute Is Not Actually The Basis of The Order But Prudential Considerations (Abstention) Are— § 1447(e) Cannot Serve As A Basis To Remand If The Plaintiff Is Not Seeking To Add A Party Whose Joinder Would Destroy Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Discovery Violations Should Ordinarily Be Punished Under Rules 26(g) And 37, Not Inherent Power — Sanctions Should Be Tailored Because Violations Occur Along A Continuum of Fault — Three-Factor Test to Determine Whether Sanctions For Non-Production Are Apt (Second Circuit) — Producing Some Relevant Documents Is No Excuse For Not Producing All/Producing Drafts Does Not Excuse Nonproduction of Finals (Good Quote) — There Is No Carve-Out From The Duty To Produce For Publicly-Filed Information (Good Quote) — Duty To Produce Includes Subsequently-Created Documents (Documents Created After Discovery Response) — Factors In Choosing The Appropriate Sanction — Purposes Of Discovery Sanctions — Proportionality: Need for Sanction to Be Tailored to Remedy the Prejudice Suffered

Matter of First Impression vs. Baseless Position (Good Quote)

The Answer to a Question of First Impression Is Rarely “Plain”

Administrative Closure of A Case Is A Tool of Docket Management Outside the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Used to Shelve A Pending But Dormant Matter —District Court Order Administratively Closing A Case Is Not An Appealable Final Order, But An Order Denying A Motion to Reopen Is — “A Case Is Deemed To Be Final When A District Court Disassociates Itself From A Case” (Good Quote) — Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) Does Not Confer Authority to Dismiss A Case; Other Power Must Be Invoked — Rule 41(b) Dismissal: Sixth Circuit Factors

§ 1927 Sanctions Available for Needlessly Prolonging Deposition Through Irrelevant Questions Even If Movant Did Not Move for A Protective Order under Rule 30 — No § 1927 Sanctions Imposable on Law Firms (Majority Rule – Circuit Split) — “Whether A Defendant Offers To Settle A Case Is Of Questionable Value In Determining Whether The Plaintiff’s Claims Are Frivolous” (Good Quote)

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence: Sixth Circuit Standards – Harsh Sanctions Typically Imposed Only for Culpability Greater Than Negligence – Sanction of Summary Judgment Properly Denied for Negligent Spoliation by Hospital’s Document Storage Company Years Before Plaintiff Ever Requested His Medical Records

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunctions in District Court (5th Circuit Standards) — Vexatious Litigant Injunctions in Court of Appeals: Inherent Power and Statutory (All Writs Act) Authority — FRAP 38 Monetary Sanctions: Frivolousness Need Not Be Intentional, Can Be Inadvertent — RICO: Plaintiff Cannot Plead Actual Reliance on Assertion He Knew at The Time Was False; Actual Reliance Unjustifiable as A Matter of Law; Common-Law Fraud Not A Predicate Act

Supplemental vs. New Expert Report: If Report Asserts New Analysis Or Conclusions [Based on Information Available at Time of Original Report], It Is Not Supplemental within Rule 26(e)(2) — Rule 37(c)(1) and Rule 16(f) Exclusion: Four Factors (5th Circuit Test) — Sham Affidavit Doctrine Applies Only to Summary Judgment Affidavit That Contradicts Prior Deposition Testimony — Note: Court Fails to Address Rule 26(e)(1)(A) (Here, The New Opinion Was “Otherwise … Made Known to The Other Parties During The Discovery Process” Because It Was Inquired About At Deposition — See The Temptation to Depose Every Expert, 40 Litigation, No. 2 at 35 (Winter 2014)

Recklessness Sufficient for § 1927 Sanctions in 9th Circuit (Circuit Split) — Mere Delay of 19 Days in Producing Prior Settlement Agreement Among the Parties “Unreasonably Lengthened the Proceedings” — Sound Dissent

Archives