DOCSLIB.ORG

Discovery Gone Bad

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discovery Gone Bad DISCOVERY GONE BAD Sponsor: Young Lawyers Division CLE Credit: 1.0 Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:50 a.m. - 11:50 a.m. Ballroom B Northern Kentucky Convention Center Covington, Kentucky A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority. Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Kentucky Bar Association TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Report of the Parties' Planning Meeting .......................................................................... 1 Court Orders Regarding Discovery Disputes ................................................................... 5 Appendix Links to Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules ........................................................ 15 THE PRESENTERS Robert M. Croft, Jr. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP 7620 Beech Spring Court Louisville, Kentucky 40241 (502) 540-2352 [email protected] ROBERT M. CROFT, JR. is an associate in Dinsmore’s Louisville and Lexington offices, where he is a member of the Product Liability and Toxic Tort Practice Groups. Mr. Croft concentrates his practice in the areas of product and premises liability, insurance coverage issues, and commercial litigation. In addition to his membership with the Kentucky Bar Association, he is a member of the Fayette County Bar Association, Louisville Bar Association, and the Defense Research Institute. Mr. Croft received a B.A. in political science and drama from Transylvania University in 2002 and his J.D. from the University of Kentucky College of Law in 2006. Mr. Croft is a Muhammad Ali Center Board Member, University of Kentucky College of Law Alumni Association Board Member and volunteers with the Chestnut Street YMCA in Louisville. Mr. Croft was also selected for the 2014 Kentucky Rising Stars ® List. Robert L. Elliott Elliott Houlihan & Skidmore, LLP BB & T Bank Plaza 200 West Vine Street, Suite 810 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 (859) 233-2700 [email protected] ROBERT L. ELLIOTT is a member of Elliott Houlihan & Skidmore, LLP in Lexington where he concentrates his practice in the areas of medical negligence, products liability, and personal injury. Mr. Elliott received his B.A. from Centre College and his J.D. from the University of Kentucky College of Law. He is admitted to practice before the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, and the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Mr. Elliott is a member of the Fayette County, Kentucky and American Bar Associations, Kentucky Justice Association, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Kentucky Independent College Fund, and Kentucky Health Care Access Foundation. He is a former President of the both the Fayette County and Kentucky Bar Associations and the recipient of the KBA's 2006 Justice Thomas B. Spain Award. i Judge James D. Ishmael, Jr. Fayette Circuit Court, Third Division 120 North Limestone, Fifth Floor Lexington, Kentucky 40507 (859) 246-2218 [email protected] JUDGE JAMES "JIM" D. ISHMAEL, JR. is a Circuit Judge in Fayette County, first taking the bench in 2004. Judge Ishmael received his B.S. in mathematics from Eastern Kentucky University and his J.D. from the University of Louisville's Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. Judge Ishmael is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Mitchell L. Perry Jefferson Circuit Court 5210 Eastwind Road Louisville, Kentucky 40207-1628 (502) 595-4919 [email protected] JUDGE MITCHELL L. PERRY is the presiding judge over Division Three of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Lousiville. Judge Perry was elected in November of 2006. Prior to taking the bench, he served as an Assistant County Attorney in Jefferson County. Judge Perry also served as an Assistant Attorney General, worked with the City of Louisville, and maintained a private practice focused primarily in the areas of employment law, civil rights, and public safety litigation. Judge Perry is a veteran of the United States Air Force and the Air National Guard. He retired in 2011 after thirty years of service at the rank of Colonel. ii UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION AT PIKEVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO.*****-*******-****** Electronically Filed STEVE SMITH PLAINTIFF v. REPORT OF THE PARTIES' PLANNING MEETING ABC TRUCKING and DUSTY STOCKARD DEFENDANTS * * * * * 1. The following persons participated in a Rule 26(f) conference on December 31, 2009, by teleconference: John Doe for Plaintiff Steve Smith; Jim Jones for Defendants ABC Trucking and Dusty Stockard. 2. Initial Disclosures. The parties will complete by January 15, 2014, the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). 3. Discovery Plan. The parties propose the following discovery plan: (a) Discovery will be needed on these subjections: 1) The cause of the subject motor vehicle accident; 2) The damages, if any, Plaintiff sustained as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident. (b) All discovery will be commenced in time to be completed by September 15, 2014. (c) A maximum number of thirty (30) Interrogatories by each party to any other party. Responses are due thirty (30) days after service. (d) A maximum number of thirty (30) Requests for Admissions by each party to any other party. Responses are due thirty (30) days after service. 1 (e) A maximum number of fifteen (15) depositions by Plaintiff and fifteen (15) depositions by Defendants. (f) Each deposition shall be limited to a maximum of seven (7) hours unless extended by agreement of the parties. (g) Reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) are due: 1) From Plaintiff by June 1, 2014. 2) From Defendants by July 15, 2014. 4. Other Items: (a) The parties do not request a conference with the Court before entry of the scheduling order. (b) The parties request a pretrial conference thirty (30) days prior to trial or at the Court's convenience. (c) Plaintiff shall amend pleadings or join parties by July 1, 2014. (d) Defendant shall amend pleadings or join parties by August 1, 2014. (e) All dispositive motions and motions in limine shall be filed by October 15, 2014. (f) The parties agree that settlement cannot be evaluated at this time. (g) The parties agree that once the case is in a proper position for settlement evaluation, the parties are amenable to a mediation with a private mediator. (h) Final lists of witnesses and exhibits under Rule 26(a)(3) should be due from Plaintiff thirty (30) days prior to the pretrial conference and from Defendants fifteen (15) days prior to the pretrial conference. (i) Objections under Rule 26(a)(3) shall be filed seven (7) days prior to the pre-trial conference. (j) This case should be ready for trial in November 2014 and should take approximately two to three days. (k) Other Matters. 1) The parties agree that this matter may be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including entry of judgment. 2 JOHN DOE P.O. BOX 1234 Lexington, KY 40502 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS s/ John Doe ___________ COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF JIM JONES P.O. Box 5678 Lexington, Kentucky 40502 s/ Jim Jones _____________ COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on January 6, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky via the CM/ECF system, which will send Notice of Electronic Filing to: John Doe P.O. BOX 1234 Lexington, KY 40502 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS s/ Jim Jones _____________ COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 3 4 COURT ORDERS REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION THERESA MORRIS, WIFE OF BOB MORRIS, Plaintiff, -vs- Case Nos. A-11-MC-712-SS A-11-MC-713-SS A-11-MC-714-SS A-11-MC-715-SS JOHN COKER, ALLIS-CHALMERS CORPORATION AND/OR STRATE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, INC., Defendants. ORDER BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the files in the above- styled causes, and now enters the following opinion and orders. Non-parties Lance Langford, Erik Hoover, and Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. invite the Court to quash subpoenas issued to them on behalf of Jonathan L. Woods, in relation to a matter currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division, because the subpoenas were not properly served, are overly broad and unduly burdensome, and seek privileged information. In response, the Court issues the following invitation of its own: Greetings and Salutations! You are invited to a kindergarten party on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 of the United States Courthouse, 200 W. Eighth Street, Austin, Texas. The party will feature many exciting and informative lessons, including: • How to telephone and communicate with a lawyer • How to enter into reasonable agreements about deposition dates 5 • How to limit depositions to reasonable subject matter • Why it is neither cute nor clever to attempt to quash a subpoena for technical failures of service when notice is reasonably given; and • An advanced seminar on not wasting the time of a busy federal judge and his staff because you are unable to practice law at the level of a first year law student.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A View from the Bench Municipal Appellate Judge Remembers (Almost) Playing Basketball for UTEP the Year They Won It All by Ki R K Co O P E R
    www.elpasobar.com Spring 2017 A View from the Bench Municipal Appellate Judge Remembers (Almost) Playing Basketball for UTEP the Year They Won It All BY KIR K COOPER PAGE 6 YOUNG LAWYER SPOTLIGHTS SENIOR LAWYER INTERVIEWS Felix Valenzuela Dean Hester BY CARLOS MALDONADO BY KIR K COOPER PAGES 12 PAGE 10 Fall 2016 3 TABLE OF CON T EN T S President´s Page .................................................. 4 Making A Difference On Indifference ............. 14 A View From The Bench .................................... 6 Program Helps Non-Custodial Parents Senior Lawyer Interview: Dean Hester ............ 10 in El Paso County ............................................. 16 Young Lawyer Spotlight: Felix Valenzuela ....... 12 JUSTICE FOR ALL: Putting Words El Paso’s Drug Courts Celebrate National Into Action ........................................................ 17 Impaired Driving Prevention Month ............... 13 2017 General Memberships Meetings ............. 18 DWI Courts Unite for National Impaired Tribute box ........................................................ 20 Driving Prevention Month ............................... 13 The editors ......................................................... 22 Mediations - Aggressive and creative Arbitrations - Evidence based awards HardieMediation.com Bill Hardie See our online calendar Wells Fargo Bank Plaza / 915.845.6400 / [email protected] Spring 2017 4 PRESIDEN T ’S PAGE State Bar of Texas Awards s I reflect on this past year as your Bar Association president, I keep Award of Merit
    [Show full text]
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)
    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Law Judicial Clerks List
    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List This list includes Texas Law alumni who reported their clerkships to the Judicial Clerkship Program – or whose names were published in the Judicial Yellow Book or Martindale Hubbell – and includes those who clerked during the recent past for judges who are currently active. There are some judges and courts for which few Texas Law alumni have clerked – in these cases we have listed alumni who clerked further back or who clerked for judges who are no longer active. Dates following a law clerk or judge’s name indicate year of graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. Retired or deceased judges, or those who has been appointed to another court, are listed at the end of each court section and denoted (*). Those who wish to use the information on this list will need to independently verify the information being used. Federal Courts U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................. 2 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................. 3 First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Federal Circuit District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 9 Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ............................................................ 10 State Courts State Appellate Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ........................................................ 25 State District & County Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • LOCAL COURT CIVIL RULES with Proposed Amendments-Redlined Version
    LOCAL COURT CIVIL RULES WithAs Proposed AmendmentsAfter Feb. 28 Meeting Revised 3/16/2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................. vi CV-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 1 CV-3 ............................................................................................................................................. 2 CV-5 ............................................................................................................................................. 34 CV-5.2 .......................................................................................................................................... 45 CV-6 DELETED .......................................................................................................................... 56 CV-7 ............................................................................................................................................. 67 CV-10 ........................................................................................................................................... 810 CV-15 NEW ................................................................................................................................. 911 CV-16 .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inter Partes Review: a New Paradigm in Patent Litigation
    Inter Partes Review: A New Paradigm in Patent Litigation Aashish Kapadia* I. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 114 II. Changes to Inter Partes Challenges Under the AIA .......................................... 115 A. Availability of Proceeding ...................................................................... 115 B. Duration and Procedure .......................................................................... 116 C. Patent Office Fees ................................................................................... 117 D. Basis for Instituting Review ................................................................... 118 E. Composition of Tribunal ......................................................................... 118 F. Standard of Evidentiary Review and Discovery ...................................... 119 G. Estoppel and Settlement .......................................................................... 119 III. Statistics of Inter Partes Review ...................................................................... 121 A. Managing Administrative Resources ...................................................... 121 B. Technology Distribution ......................................................................... 122 C. Preliminary Responses ............................................................................ 123 D. PTAB Trials ............................................................................................ 124 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Hopwood V. Texas (District Court Order to Close Case)
    CHERYL L. HOPWOOD, et al. vs. STATE OF TEXAS, et al. NO. A 92 CA 563 SS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AUSTIN DIVISION 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10658 July 24, 2001, Decided July 24, 2001, Filed COUNSEL: [*1] For CHERYL J. HOPWOOD, plaintiff: Terral R. Smith, Locke Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P., Steven W. Smith, Law Offices of Steven W. Smith, Austin, TX. For CHERYL J. HOPWOOD, plaintiff: Michael P. McDonald, Vincent A. Mulloy, Michael E. Rosman, Washington, DC. For CHERYL J. HOPWOOD, plaintiff: R. Kenneth Wheeler, Wallace, Harris, Sims & Wheeler, Richmond, VA. For CHERYL J. HOPWOOD, plaintiff: Joseph A. Wallace, Paul J. Harris, Harris & Bush, Elkins, WV. For CHERYL J. HOPWOOD, plaintiff: Walter J. Scott, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX. For DOUGLAS CARVELL, KENNETH ELLIOTT, DAVID . ROGERS, consolidated plaintiffs: Steven W. Smith, Law Offices of Steven W. Smith, Austin, TX. For DOUGLAS CARVELL, KENNETH ELLIOTT, DAVID . ROGERS, consolidated plaintiffs: R. Kenneth Wheeler, Wallace, Harris, Sims & Wheeler, Richmond, VA. For DOUGLAS CARVELL, KENNETH ELLIOTT, DAVID . ROGERS, consolidated plaintiffs: Joseph A. Wallace, Paul J. Harris, Harris & Bush, Elkins, WV. For DOUGLAS CARVELL, KENNETH ELLIOTT, DAVID . ROGERS, consolidated plaintiffs: Michael E. Rosman, Washington, DC. For DOUGLAS CARVELL, consolidated plaintiff: Walter J. Scott, Jr., Gibson, [*2] Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX. For STATE OF TEXAS, BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, THOMAS O. HICKS, MARIO E. RAMIREZ, ROBERT M. BERDAHL, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW, MARK G. YUDOF, STANLEY M. JOHANSON, defendants: Harry M. Reasoner, Betty R. Owens, Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Houston, TX.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen D. Susman Partner
    Stephen D. Susman Partner Houston, Texas Phone: 713.653.7801 New York, New York Phone: 212.336.8331 [email protected] STEPHEN D. SUSMAN, P.C., born Houston, Texas; admitted to bar, 1965, Texas; 1999, District of Columbia; 2000, New York; 2002, Colorado. STEPHEN D. SUSMAN - TRIALS Revised: March 2, 2020 (1976 - Present) Style: Grouse River Outfitters Ltd v. Oracle Corporation United States District Court, Northern District of California, before the Judge: Honorable Laurel Beeler Opposing Counsel: Sarah M. Ray Nature of the Case: Fraud Trial Dates: July 9-15 ,2019 Glen Fallis Represented: Grouse River Outfitters Ltd. Result: Defense verdict, on appeal 647739v1/109031 Style: BTG International Inc. v. Wellstat Therapeutics Corporation Judge: Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster Opposing Counsel: Richard Scheff Nature of the Case: Breach of Contract Trial Dates: May 1-5, 2017 Represented: Wellstat Therapeutics Corporation Result: Client awarded judgment of $71 million. Style: Securities Industry & Financial Markets Ass’n v. Nasdaq and NYSE Judge: Chief Administrative Law Judge Brenda Murray of the SEC Opposing Counsel: Michael Warden, Sidley Austin LLP Nature of the Case: Petition to Deny Increases in Proprietary Data Fees Trial Dates: April 20-24, 2015 Represented: Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC Result: Pending post-trial briefing Style: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Samuel Wyly, et al. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, before the Judge: Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin Opposing Counsel: Bridgett Fitzpatrick and John Worlund of SEC Nature of the Case: Securities Fraud and Insider Trading - 2 - 647739v1/109031 March 31 – May 7, 2014 Jury Trial Trial Dates: July 2, 2014 Bench Trial August 4–7, 2014 Bench Trial Samuel Wyly Represented: Donald R.
    [Show full text]
  • FFRF Blocks Giveaway for Church Repairs an Alaska City Wisely Chose Not to Dole out Money to a Local Church After the FFRF Raised Objections to the Proposed Move
    Julia Sweeney’s Do you know an FFRF’s guide to religious American Indian Winter Solstice movies atheist? celebration! PAGES 10-12 PAGES 13-14 PAGE 24 Vol. 35 No. 1 Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. January / February 2018 ‘A’ is for awesome (and atheist and agnostic)! FFRF blocks giveaway for church repairs An Alaska city wisely chose not to dole out money to a local church after the FFRF raised objections to the proposed move. The Sitka City Assembly was prepared to allocate $5,000 from the city’s Visitor’s Enhancement Fund to help repair St. Michael’s Cathedral. City Attorney Bri- an Hanson had reviewed concerns that funding this church would violate the First Amendment and initially (and er- roneously) concluded that the grant would be permissible. FFRF challenged this assessment. Han- Photo by Kimberley Haas/Union Leader Correspondent son failed to properly After getting approval from the city of Somersworth, N.H., FFRF Member Richard Gagnon raises the ‘A’ apply the Supreme flag next to a Ten Commandments monument on city property on Jan. 2. See story on page 7. Court’s 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) test. Other cases have shown that Lemon’s second prong (that a Most productive year ever for FFRF! governmental action’s Legal Department scholars across the country for tal consisted of letters warning 350 principal or primary effect must neither ad- legal advice. school districts across the United Shutterstock photo earns more than vance nor inhibit reli- States against allowing the Todd St. Michael’s Cathedral in gion) does not allow 300 victories State/church complaints Becker Foundation into public Sitka, Alaska, will not be grants that support re- Over the past year, FFRF schools to convert students.
    [Show full text]
  • LOCAL COURT CIVIL RULES with Proposed Amendments
    LOCAL COURT CIVIL RULES With Proposed Amendments TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................. vi CV-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 1 CV-3 ............................................................................................................................................. 2 CV-5 ............................................................................................................................................. 3 CV-5.2 .......................................................................................................................................... 4 CV-6 DELETED .......................................................................................................................... 5 CV-7 ............................................................................................................................................. 6 CV-10 ........................................................................................................................................... 8 CV-15 NEW ................................................................................................................................. 9 CV-16 .......................................................................................................................................... 10 CV-23 .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Years Womenat Ut Law Susana Alemán Lynn Blais Sarah Buel Melinda Taylor Wendy Wagner
    Cover_Spring06 4/27/06 3:01 PM Page 1 SPECIAL CONTRIBUTORS’ REPORT SPRING 2006 THE MAGAZINE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF ULAW TLAW CELEBRATING 100 YEARS ofWOMEN AT UT LAW 2006 Grand Chancellor Elizabeth McKee plus: SUSANA ALEMÁN LYNN BLAIS SARAH BUEL MELINDA TAYLOR WENDY WAGNER and much more... THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL FOUNDATION, 727 E. DEAN KEETON STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78705 FOR US, WISE COUNSEL HOLDS A SPECIAL PLACE OF HONOR. As Bracewell & Giuliani marks six decades of excellence in client service, we pause to salute the contributions our attorneys have made to our profession. We believe in hiring top professionals and fostering a work environment that brings out their best on behalf of clients through hard work, solid values and proven leadership. We congratulate The University of Texas School of Law for its long history of challenging young attorneys and shaping their values of client service and professional and community involvement. We applaud Bracewell & Giuliani’s University of Texas School of Law alumni and their continued commitment to excellence. TEXAS NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. LONDON KAZAKHSTAN bracewellgiuliani.com UTL_Bracewell_0605.indd 1 4/13/06 12:41:34 PM 01_contents 5/1/06 9:03 PM Page 1 CONTENTS SPRI G 2006 TABLE OF Kayla Dreyer, ’07, organized the Fulbright & Jaworski golf clinic to help women students learn the game. FRONT OF THE BOOK FEATURES BACK OF THE BOOK 2 VOIR DIRE LAW PARTNERS CELEBRATING AND OTHER 4 IN CAMERA 100 YEARS OF MAJOR GIFTS 25 A new environmental law clinic WOMEN AT UT LAW and marching through history 18 GIVING BY FUND 31 9 DEAN’S MESSAGE GIVING BY CLASS 54 A Bright Future Why UT Law is one of the best by Steven A.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas, Where Are the Judges? by Sandhya Bathija, Joshua Field, and Phillip Martin April 2, 2014
    Texas, Where Are the Judges? By Sandhya Bathija, Joshua Field, and Phillip Martin April 2, 2014 When President Barack Obama was first elected in November 2008, Texas had a complete slate of district court judges.1 However, that was the last time Texas’s federal courts operated at full capacity. Less than a month after the 2008 election, on November 30, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge W. Royal Furgeson Jr., who served on the Western District of Texas, took senior status—a form of semiretirement for federal judges. Now, some 2,000 days later, his old seat remains unfilled. Because of the deference to home-state senators to recommend judicial nominees, the blame for this judicial vacancy crisis falls squarely on the shoulders of Texas’s two U.S. senators, Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, who have failed to act and address this serious problem. Although Judge Furgeson’s seat has been vacant the longest, his empty spot on the federal bench is just the tip of the iceberg of what has become a judicial vacancy crisis in Texas. As of March 19, there are 10 current vacancies on federal courts that serve Texas, the most of any state in the nation.2 If nothing is done about this situation, in the next year, there will be at least 13 vacancies on these courts.3 The result of these current vacancies is a backlog of more than 12,000 cases and a denial of access to justice for Texans.4 Perhaps Sens. Cornyn and Cruz do not get it, but federal courts matter, and having judgeships sitting vacant should have all Texans very concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • H:\YB XXXV 2010 15 Oct\Title Page Fr.Wpd
    NEW YORK CONVENTION OF 1958 INTRODUCTION The principal multilateral arbitration Conventions are reported on in Part V – A through V – D of the Yearbook. Part V – A contains the reporting on the 1958 New York Convention. Part V – B reports on the 1961 European (Geneva) Convention, Part V – C reports on the 1965 Washington (ICSID) Convention and Part V – D reports on the Inter-American (Panama) Convention of 1975. Court decisions in which more than one of these Conventions have been applied are included in the reporting on the Convention which has played the principal role in the decision. Thus, court decisions reported in Part V – A on the 1958 New York Convention may also contain references to the 1961 European (Geneva) Convention or the 1975 Inter-American (Panama) Convention. Likewise, court decisions in Part V – B, Part V – C or Part V – D may also contain a reference to the 1958 New York Convention. The list of subject matters will include the relevant Convention. This Volume reports on 86 New York Convention decisions rendered in 25 countries, bringing the total to 1,666 decisions from 62 countries and 2 jurisdictions. According to the Treaty Section of the United Nations, there are, as of 1 November 2009, 145 Contracting States (and 28 extensions) to the New York Convention. As of this Volume, the Summary of each decision, prefaced by a short recap, is published in print; a detailed Excerpt of the decision is available online at <www.kluwerarbitration.com>. A code provided with the Yearbook allows readers to access the relevant Volume online, as well as the preceding Volume.
    [Show full text]