Issue/Argument Points Points

Total Points ______

Civil Procedure Maranville

March 2003 Examination: Grading Sheet

Issue/Argument Points Points

Part I (43 points total, 22 points this page) Possible Awarded

1. Substantive claim (2 points total): parties / ½
Claim: negl + FELA / ½
relief ($) + fear of cancer / ½
Nothing else / ½
2. Procedural posture (3 points total): certiorari / ½
W.Va. decision denying discretionary review / ½
Judgment on jury verdict for pl / ½
Erroneous jury instruction / ½
Recovery for fear of cancer as part of damages / ½
Structure: moved beyond procedural history / ½
3. a) Best grounds- federal SMJ (1 pt): Fn 1 – 45 U.S.C 56 / 1
b) Other possible fed SMJ grounds (6 pts): 1331 fed question / ½
Claim arising under federal law: FELA / ½
Diversity: 1332 / ½
R: Complete diversity / ½
R: + amount in controversy - >$75k / 1/2
A: here amt of jury verdict makes clear > $75k / 1/2
R: Indiv citizenship = U.S. citizen + state citizen / ½
State citizen = domicile, residence + intent to remain / ½
R: Corp. citizenship: 1332(c) / ½
State of incorporation / ½
Principal place of business / ½
No info in decision beyond fact filed in W.Va. / ½
c) Removal (4 pts) 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) / 1
removal of cases based on federal question jurisdiction / 1
Without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties, / 1
diversity of citizenship if def not citizen / 1
28 U.S.C. 1445: FELA actions non-removable / (4)
4. a) When seek appeal? (4 pts): 28 U.S.C. 1291 fin ord rqt / 1
Here: interlocutory appeal / ½
Exceptions: 1292(a)(1) injunction – not here / ½
54(b) – multiple claims/parties – not here / ½
1292(b) – not controlling, or materially advance term of litig / ½
not collateral order – effectively unreviewable / ½
So appeal after judgment on verdict / ½
b) Standard of review ( 2 pts): Issue of law: admiss of evid / 1
De novo / 1
Bonus: Possible discretionary aspect to mot in limine / ½

Subtotal Part I, Questions 1-4 22 ______

Part I (cont.)(18 points this page)

5. a) Standard of review: rejected jury instr (2 pts): Law / 1
De novo / 1
b) Failure to submit instruction: Waiver (2 pts). No / ½
Must object, submit instruction or waive – / 1
Rule 51 / ½
6. Denial of mot new trial (2 pts). No serious proced error / 1
Verdict not against “great weight of evidence” / 1
7. a) Strategic adv: focus on jury inst (1 pt) precedent / 1
b) Motions to object to sufficiency of evid (2 pts) jml (DV) / ½
Rule 50(a) / ½
Renewed motion (JNOV) / ½
Rule 50(b) / ½
c) Stnd of review on appeal (2 pts) Issue of law / 1
De novo / 1
8. Mot for new trial – jury confusion (2 pts) No / 1
Jurors can’t testify about decision process / ½
Process insulated fr review / ½
Bonus: ER 606(b) / (½)
9. Rt to jury trial FELA (5 pts) 7th amend – reqt’s / 1
Historical test: preserve 1791 / 1
Nature of claim: common law writ / ½
Relief: damages / ½
Here: familiar negligence claim for damages / 1
Expect challenge to succeed / 1

Subtotal Part I, Questions 5-9 18 ______

Part II, Question 1 (10 points)

1. Dr. Welby, Treating M.D. 26(a)(1)(A)Init disc / 1
26(b)(1) “discoverable info” “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” / 2
Here: relevant info about tx / 1
Not privileged: W VA statute / 1
26(a)(1)(A) Disclose name, address, telephone # / 1
26(a)(1)(B) any medical records plan to use / 1
Fact W rather than expert W / 1
Add’l disc w/out re 26(b)(4) limits / 1

Subtotal Part II, Dr. Welby 10 ______

Part II, Question II (10 points)

2. Dr. Expertise, Consulting Exp. Expert/opinion W / 1
Rule 26(a)(2) governs, not (a)(1) / 1
26(a)(2)(A)Identify? may be used at trial – opinion evidence / 1
Status of Dr. E – hired, prob not testify / 1
26(b)(5): How will def challenge if not name? / 1
Disclose or in camera / 1
26(a)(2)(B) written report if will testify / 1
Not decided yet, not need to provide / 1
Add’l discovery: 26(b)(4)(A) – deposition if will testify - no / ½
26(b)(4)(B) – depo if retained in antic of trial, not testify, only / ½
35(b) – order for physical examination + report / ½
Exceptional circumstances / ½

Subtotal, Dr. Expertise 10 ______

Part II, Question 3 (15 points)

3. E-mails. Initial disclosure stage past / 1
26(a)(1) duty to supplement? / 1
Document 1: not use to support claims/defenses / 1
Doc 2: relevant – disclose / 1
More serious prob: discovery abuse / 1
Unclear whether atty’s know / 1
Discuss if they are reasonable / 1
Rule 37(a)(2), “move to compel . . . & for . . . sanctions” / 1
“in good faith conferred” / 1
What does that mean? / 1
Reasonable expenses if confer, nodisclosure not subst justif / 1
Rule 26(g)(3) - atty certif.. / 1
If atty’s certified erroneous response, cd be subj to sanctions / 1
37(b)(2) sanctions: desig facts, def not oppose claim, judgment by default, even if no court order for discovery / 1
Here: serious destruction of evidence justifies serious penalty / 1

Subtotal – E-Mails 15 points ______

Part III, Question 1 (8 pts)

1. Norfolk’s SJ Motion ) Rule 56 genuine issue, sj ml / 2
Support motion under 56(e) aff’s w/ admissible evidence / 1
Celotex – if pl has bop, def can point out absence of proof / 2
Here: Show no gimf – excerpts fr depositions / 1
Legal argument (brief) re: standard / 1
Here: before S.Ct. resolved issue – arguing for diff stds / 1

Subtotal, Part III, Question 1 8 ______

Part III. Question 2 (7 points)

2. Pl’s Response to SJ Motion Def shows no giml re pfc / 1
Pl must provide add’l factual evid - satisfy legal test / 1
And show what the legal test is (trial ct – legal test unclear) / 1
Factual evidence – prob whether can ethically go beyond dep / 1
26(e) no duty to seasonably amend / 1
additional declarations fr pl’s elaborating depos testimony,. / ½
e.g. more recent fears that have developed / ½
Ethical issue: not lead pl to say what thinks ct wants to hear. / 1

Subtotal, Part III, Question 2 7 ______

Part III, Question 3 (10 points)

3. SJ: Role of Burdens Trial: Pl has b. of prod. / 1
+ burden of persuasion / 1
PFC on each element, incl fear of cancer / 1
then def b of production to negate 1 or more element / 1
If def meets b of prod, then pl has ultimate burden to persuade / ½
SJ Moving party has initial b. of production – no gimf + jml / 1
Here – def / ½
Celotex - def’s burden met if point out absence of proof / 1
If do that, need not present aff evid / ½
Otherwise, present aff evidence negating element / ½
Or facts undisputed, motion revolves around interpret of law / ½
(likelihood develop cancer + physical manifestation of fear (Norfolk) or “genuine and serious fear” (S.Ct.). / ½
Burden becomes irrelevant – ct decides what law is / 1

Subtotal, Part III, Question 3 10 ______

Subtotal Entire Page ______