Download associated file: Fordham eDiscovery Sanctions Program.pdf  Professor Daniel J. Capra, the Reed Professor of Law at Fordham and the Reporter to the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence, has organized a stellar program on Electronic Discovery Sanctio ...

Thomas v. Baca, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2394 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009): “This court has not recognized the incurment of legal fees as an injury cognizable under RICO, and we decline to do so here.” ...

Two cases: • From LaFlamboy v. Landek, 587 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2008): The Village Defendants also argue that because municipal corporations cannot be held liable under RICO, see Lancaster Cnty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 404-05 (9th Cir. 1991), Village employees escape RICO liability f ...

30(b)(6) testimony is frequently taken from an adverse party and comprises an admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3). Not always. If not, it must otherwise satisfy hearsay and competency requirements. From Century Pac., Inc. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 528 F. Supp. 2d 206, 215 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2007):

From Clark v Porcelli, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5677 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2009): The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. Instead, all that is ordinarily required is that the claimant set forth a "short and plain statement of his claim showing that ...

From Adkins v. Wolever, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2397 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2009) (en banc): We reheard this case en banc to resolve a choice-of-law question: Does state law control a federal court's imposition of sanctions as relief for spoliated evidence? The original panel, constrained by our earlier opinions that applied state law to determ ...

From Moore v. Vital Prods., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7878 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009): First, there is nothing untoward about defendant offering affidavits from individuals who previously were deposed. A party is permitted to offer depositions as well as affidavits and/or declarations on summary judgment; these may be offered together, i ...

From Kosen v. Ruffing, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 659 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2009): A defendant may waive their [sic] right to remove a case to federal court by "tak[ing] actions in state court that manifest his or her intention to have the matter adjudicated there, and to abandon his or her right to a federal forum." Resolution Trust C ...

Three cases: • From Nomo Agroindustrial SA de CV v. Enza Zaden N. Am., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8657 (D. Ariz. Jan. 29, 2009): See U.S. v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1410, 1412 (9th Cir. 1993)(emphasizing that "[c]ertainty is an unreasonable expectation in the realm of expert opinion. [An expert's] use of t ...

From Giltnane v. TVA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6734 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 30, 2009), quoting In re Paradise Valley Holdings, Inc., No. 03-34704, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2951 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Dec. 29, 2005): "'Although [Rule 26(d)] does not say so, it is implicit that some showing of good cause should be made to justify [an order allowing e ...