When asked what has been the most significant development in federal litigation during his time on the bench, United States Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola of the D.C. District responded, simply: “the impact upon the...more
On February 18, 2014, the public comment period closed on the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To date, almost 3,000 comments have been published, many of which addressed the appropriate scope of...more
A number of Reed Smith attorneys have been active in supporting the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly those aimed at narrowing the discovery process through consideration of...more
Landowners routinely have to give up something in return for a government agency's granting a discretionary permit. Developers are quite familiar with these requirements, as they are consistently compelled to dedicate...more
Landowners routinely have to give up something in return for a government agency’s granting a discretionary permit. However, there are limits, as the government agency cannot typically demand conditions that are not...more
On November 7th, the State Board of Education (“SBE”) met to review proposed regulations implementing the “proportionality requirement” and the Local Control and Accountability Plan (“LCAP”) framework under the Local Control...more
As reported by our colleague Robert Thomas on inversecondemnation.com, the California Supreme Court granted the California Building Industry Association's (CBIA) petition for review in California Building Industry Association...more
Cooperation, proportionality and efficiency. Oh my!
One of the first lessons we are taught as a child is how to share. Unfortunately, for decades, the opposite has been drilled into litigation professionals. Judicial...more
What kind of impact can be expected from the “Proportionality Discovery Proposals?” These Proportionality Discovery Proposals refer to the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules designed to balance the benefits of...more
On May 8, 2013, the Civil Rules Advocacy Committee (“Committee”) proposed several changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposal includes amendments to the following rules: 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and...more
PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, 2013 WL 2285109 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 24, 2013).
In this employment law case, the plaintiff appealed a trial court’s denial of motion for sanctions against the defendants who allegedly erased...more
Efforts to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took another step forward last week. On June 3, 2013, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (“the Standing Committee”) approved a package of proposals...more
First, an admission and a regret: My June 6 post missed the 69th anniversary of an episode as significant as any in our country’s history: D-Day. ...more
The month of July ensures some much needed warmth in Minnesota after an offensively wintery spring, but July also brings an exciting new set of amendments to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. From July 1, 2013 onward,...more
In re Biomet, 2013 WL 1729682 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 18, 2013).
In this behemoth multidistrict litigation, the defendants used key word search to cull 19.5 million documents prior to leveraging predictive coding....more
In a series of recent judgments the EU General Court has given some guidance to companies considering challenging the inclusion of their substances in the REACH Candidate List. In summary, it is now clear that the listing of...more
Back to Top