Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FRCP Overhaul
Some 75 years after the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), an overhaul is imminent and it will fundamentally affect product liability litigation practice. The proposed amendments are categorized into early, active, and sustained judicial case management; discovery practice addressing scope, proportionality, and sanctions; and cooperation by lawyers in an adversarial process. The article herein takes up the first two, in that order. The amendments involving cooperation between lawyers are much more modest.
This article explains the most important amendments. The focus is primarily on discovery, because that is the crux of so many product liability cases, and the discovery amendments are more far-reaching. The cases have involved unduly burdensome discovery, and skirmishes over sanctions that have troubled courts, practitioners and companies alike. They have struggled to sort through a morass of conflicting standards over the duties of preservation of evidence (especially electronically stored information, dubbed ESI), the standards for imposing discovery sanctions, and the severity of the sanctions. The amendments should alleviate these problems.
Before explaining the amendments themselves, an overview of the rigorous and laborious rulemaking process, its status, and the history behind these amendments is important because a few more steps must still be completed before the rules are adopted. At this point, however, approval of the new rules is expected.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.