PublicSquare.net is funded by the generous donations of our readers. You can help support us by making a tax-deductible contribution through PayPal.


Thank you for your support!




PublicSquare.net is an independent, non-partisan webzine that aims to encourage stimulating debate on the political, legal, religious, and social issues of the day. We invite today's leading experts to engage one another in thoughtful, intelligent discussion. Registered members can join in and continue the dialogue. Join us and get inside PublicSquare.net.




Subscribe to Our Newsletter





Email Marketing by VerticalResponse








    Bloggerheads

October 2, 2009

Not quite gone yet

Filed under: Law — Tags: , , — Lumen Mulligan @ 4:23 pm

I just wanted to add, that I agree with the proposal to allow district courts to control discovery and have early, issue-specific motions for summary judgment.

I don’t think plaintiffs should have to prove their case when they file.  But neither should they be empowered to drag out a meritless case.  To take Twombly as an example:  I think that the case should have survived a 12(b)(6) motion.  But I agree with Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Wallach that the district should have been empowered to limit discovery solely to the question of conspiracy.  Further, I think it appropriate for the district court to limit initial discovery so as to force plaintiff, especially in a claim the seems unlikely to win, to find evidence of conspiracy in a timely manner.

This proposal speaks to my general themes: lets not fix discovery by pleading reforms and lets have contextualized fixes aimed at where real harms exist as opposed to blanket pleading changes that may well do more more than good when applied to a whole host of cases.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.