Exam (elaborations)
GOVT 407 Discovery Quiz Week 6-Undergraduate Civil Procedure with 100- correct answers.
- Course
- Institution
GOVT 407 Discovery Quiz Week 6-Undergraduate Civil Procedure with 100- correct answers.
[Show more]
Content preview
GOVT 407: Discovery QuizWeek 6-Undergraduate Civil
Procedure with 100% correct
answers
Liebling was injured using a pair of electric hedge clippers manufactured
by the Miller Manufacturing Company. He sues Miller, alleging that it
negligently designed the hedge clippers by leaving a bare wire inside that
caused an electric shock. During discovery, he sends a Rule 34 request for
production of documents that includes a request for all written warnings
provided with the clippers concerning risks that the clippers posed to
users. Miller objects to this request on the ground that it is relevant to a
failure to warn theory, and Liebling has only pleaded a different theory,
that the hedge clippers were negligently designed. Is the objection valid?
No, even though the documents are not relevant to the negligence claim,
they would be discoverable under 26(b)(1) " subject matter involved in the
pending action." Liebling may be asking for this just to see the factual
support for adding the failure to warn claim, because pleading that claim
initially, without factual support may lead to rule 11 sanctions.
When Liebling files suit, Miller responds by filing a motion to dismiss
under 12(b)(2)-lack of PJ.
a. Liebling sends interrogatories to Miller inquiring about business
contacts with the forum state and the manner in which the offending
clippers entered the state. Must Miller answer the interrogatories?
YES, Miller must answer these interrogatories.
Explained:
Liebling's interrogatories pertain to the court's jurisdiction and not the
actual personal injury claim or any defense against it. However, one could
argue that the information is relevant to Miller's jurisdictional defense and
falls under Rule 26(b)(1) discovery. The question of jurisdiction is critical
to the court's ability to address Liebling's claim, and he has the right to
obtain jurisdictional facts to support his case. Consequently, courts
recognize that jurisdictional issues are within the scope of discovery under
Rule 26(b)(1). A case in point is Commissariat A L' Energie Atomique v. Chi
Mei Optoelectronics Corp., where the jurisdictional discovery was granted
under amended Rule 26(b)(1). This view is supported by Moore's, § 26.45.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller GUARANTEEDSUCCESS. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $14.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67096 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now