In Emily Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Protection Corp., No. 11-57239 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2013), the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an offer of judgment (Rule 68) did not make a plaintiff’s case moot. This is an important case because it provides guidance when considering when to file summary judgment when a Rule 68 offer has been made.
Rule 68 is when a party offers opposing party a judgment for full satisfaction that the opposing party could recover at trial. In this case, First American offered $7,019.32 plus costs. Diaz, the plaintiff, declined this offer. Thereby the issue was whether offering the money made the lawsuit moot.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the First American’s offer, even if it fully satisfied the plaintiff’s claim, did not make the case moot. When reaching this conclusion the 9th Circuit cited Kagan’s dissent in Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1528-29 (2013).
‘[A] case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’ By those measures, an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a case. When a plaintiff rejects such an offer – however good the terms – her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before. And so too does the court’s ability to grant her relief. An unaccepted settlement offer – like any unaccepted contract offer – is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.”
Id. at 1536 (citation omitted).
via Courthouse News Service.
Corporate Counsel reported about a very important and significant change that might occur next year. Here are the highlights of the proposed amendments (starting on Page 91 of 322).
The e-discovery rules may change once again by next year. The United States Court’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules voted last week to send proposed amendments to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Standing Committee will consider approving or rejecting the proposal in early June.
The most significant proposals would narrow the scope of discovery under Rule 26; impose or reduce numerical limits on written discovery and depositions under Rules 30, 31, 33, and 36; Rule 37 will adopt a uniform set of guidelines regarding sanctions when a party fails to preserve discoverable information; and Rule 34 will tighten the rules governing responses for production of documents.
Rule 26’s proposed amendments are as follows:
Rules 30’s and 31’s proposed amendments are as follows:
- The number of depositions (oral and written) would be reduced from 10 to 5.
- The limit of an oral deposition is reduced to 6 hours.
- The number of written interrogatories would change from 25 to 15.
- The number of requests will be 25, except for requests relating to the genuineness of documents.
- There will be a presumptive limit on the number of Requests for Admissions a party may serve.
- A court order or a stipulation by the parties may increase the limits on any numerical discovery.
Rule 34’s proposed amendments (which govern the production of documents and electronically stored information) are as follows:
- The objections to document requests must be stated with specificity. This requirement has already been applied to interrogatory responses under Rule 33.
- When the responding party must state that it will produce the requested documents (instead of permitting inspection), the production must be completed by the date for inspection stated in the request or by a later reasonable time stated in the response.
- A party objecting to a document request must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of the objection.
Rule 37(e)’s proposed amendment (which concern sanctions for failure to preserve discoverable information) state:
- A court may impose sanctions when it finds that a party failed to preserve information that should have been preserved for litigation. The sanctions includes remedies and curative measures that are not considered “sanctions,” such as allowing additional discovery, requiring a party to recreate or obtain the information that it lost, or ordering a party to pay reasonable expenses resulting from the loss of information.
- The court may also impose sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A) when to address preservation failures. These sanctions include issue or evidence preclusion, the striking of pleadings, the dismissal of the action in whole or in part, and an adverse inference.
- The court may impose sanctions or order an adverse jury instruction only if it finds that the failure to preserve caused “substantial prejudice” in the litigation and was “willful or in bad faith.” or that the failure to preserve “irreparably deprived a party of any meaningful opportunity” to litigate the claims in the action.
via On the Cusp of Major Changes to E-Discovery Rules.
FTC v. PCCARE Inc., 12 civ-7189 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2013) is a very strange case because it shows how service of process might be altered and in what circumstances. In this case, the FTC wanted to be able to serve documents other than the Summons and Complaint via Facebook or e-mail. The Southern District of New York granted this request.
This is a very strange case. Generally, the Hague Service Convention has guidelines detailing how abroad defendants may be served. The Hague Service Convention doesn’t expressly authorize service on foreign defendants by email or social media accounts.
So why could you serve documents a foreign defendant over Facebook?
The court explained that “A court in this district has held that the Hague Service Convention only applies to the initial service of process, not subsequent documents.” See SEC v. Credit Bankcorp., Ltd., 2001 WL 666158, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 14, 2011). In addition the court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), whereby it stated,
a Court may fashion means of service on an individual in a foreign county, so long as the ordered means of service (1) is not prohibited by international agreement; and (2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.” SEC c. Anticevix, 2009 WL 361739, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Fec. 13, 2009).
The court reasoned that federal courts need to keep an open mind about technology.
The court acknowledges that service by Facebook is a relatively novel concept, and that it is conceivable that defendants will not in fact receive notice by this means. But, as noted, the proposed service by Facebook is intended not as the sole method of service, but instead to backstop the service upon each defendant at his, or its, known email address. And history teaches that, as technology advances and modes of communication progress, courts must be open to considering requests to authorize service via technological means of then-recent vintage, rather than dismissing them out of hand as novel.
via FTC can serve foreign defendants via Facebook, federal judge rules – ABA Journal.