If you could change any rule of federal procedure, what would it be, and why?


The University of Denver Law Review recently published an issue consisting of articles responding to the question, “If you could change any rule of federal procedure, what would it be, and why?”

Several authors took up the charge by addressing e-discovery, while the a few articles were focused on pleadings, and offers of judgment. The e-discovery articles include a piece by the directors of the Electronic Discovery Institute titled “Mandating Reasonableness in a Reasonable Inquiry”; a short essay by practitioner Daniel Girard titled “Limiting Evasive Discovery: A Proposal for Three Cost-Saving Amendments to the Federal Rules”; and an article from two Denver area practitioners titled “Proportional Discovery: Making it the Norm, Rather than the Exception.” The theme seems to center around making E-discovery less expensive.

Other notable contributions include a piece from Judge Lee Rosenthal, Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (whose contribution also mentions e-discovery); Judge Mark Kravitz, Chair of the Civil Rules Advisory Committee; an article from the directors of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System; and contributions from Professors Robert Bone, Stephen Subrin, A. Benjamin Spencer, and Jeffrey Stempel.

The articles can currently be found in the Current Issues section of the Law Review’s web site, located here (note that this link may soon become outdated.)

It's only fair to share...Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Email this to someone
Share on StumbleUpon