Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Summary Judgments and Judicial Economy
Topic Started: Oct 20 2010, 08:29 AM (290 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

In American legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court prior to trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that:

there are no issues of "material" fact requiring a trial for their resolution, and
in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment
.



From the above, it is clear that summary judgment could be rendered against Nifong; in that

there is no question about the "fact" that he appeared before the cameras and defamed the players,
showing a choke-hold which did not happen (and which, since he claims not to have questioned
Mangum--who was "too traumatized to speak" about the incident, he could not have learned about anyway).

And, there is no question about the law, which specifically removes immunity from a prosecutor for his
statements before the media.

No questions arise about either of these matters.


As well, there can likely be summary judgment (no trial) against several of the other defendants.
(Tara Levicy, for example; and officer Gottlieb. And even Meehan.)

Some discovery might be necessary to establish exactly the roles played by each of these; but once
that information was obtained, again, their assumed actions were so blatant, and the law so clear,
that no trial would be necessary and summary judgment could be rendered.

Summary judgment would spare the court a lot of time and effort and expense (in that a large portion
of the suits could be determined without trial).

Therefore a judge, knowing the above, and with the duty to see that the rules of civil procedure are "to be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding" could quite properly have ruled that partial discovery would be allowed to proceed,
in the interests of judicial economy, so as to avoid a lengthy process which included a trial.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 56. Summary Judgment



(d) Case Not Fully Adjudicated on the Motion.
(1) Establishing Facts.

If summary judgment is not rendered on the whole action, the court should, to the extent practicable, determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue. The court should so determine by examining the pleadings and evidence before it and by interrogating the attorneys. It should then issue an order specifying what facts — including items of damages or other relief — are not genuinely at issue. The facts so specified must be treated as established in the action.

(2) Establishing Liability.

An interlocutory summary judgment may be rendered on liability alone, even if there is a genuine issue on the amount of damages.



It is not at issue that Nifong went before the media and defamed the players and inflamed the public,
and did so many times (whether it be 70 times or 15 times).

And it is not at issue that these actions place a prosecutor outside the bounds of his immunity.

Ergo, it can be established without the expense of a trial that Nifong is liable for such actions.

A concern for judicial economy could have seen such a judgment rendered three years ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 26


(f) Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery
(1) Conference Timing.

Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable — and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).

(2) Conference Content; Parties' Responsibilities.

In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person.

(3) Discovery Plan.

A discovery plan must state the parties' views and proposals on:

(A) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be made;

(B) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused on particular issues;

(C) any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced;

(D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials, including — if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these claims after production — whether to ask the court to include their agreement in an order;

(E) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed; and

(F) any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).

(4) Expedited Schedule.

If necessary to comply with its expedited schedule for Rule 16(b) conferences, a court may by local rule:

(A) require the parties' conference to occur less than 21 days before the scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b); and

(B) require the written report outlining the discovery plan to be filed less than 14 days after the parties' conference, or excuse the parties from submitting a written report and permit them to report orally on their discovery plan at the Rule 16(b) conference.


Given the requirement that the Federal Rules be "construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

what reason could the court give for denying a discovery conference?

The court cited "judicial economy".

Yet the above makes clear that actual concern for "judicial economy" would have presented compelling arguments for permitting at least partial discovery according to the regular schedule, in order to save the court a lengthy process leading to trial.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply