Brief Fact Summary. Internet content providers and civil liberties groups sued United States Attorney General, claiming that Child Online Protection Act (COPA) violated their First Amendment rights.  They are seeking preliminary injunction of enforcement.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. When there is a challenge on a content-based speech restriction under First Amendment, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that proposed alternatives will not be as effective as challenged statute.

Facts. Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to avert minors from having access to pornography on the internet. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and online publishers sued in federal court to prevent enforcement of the act, arguing that it violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. The District Court agreed. On appeal, a Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed, the Court held that because the act used "community standards" to determine which material was harmful to minors, it would bar material that was offensive in the most "puritanical" communities from being displayed in more "tolerant" ones.

Issue. Whether the Child Online Protection Act's requirements violate the First Amendment by restricting speech and also violates the First Amendment by using a method that is not least restrictive? 

Brief Fact Summary. Confederate Southern Americans were told not to display the confederate flag anywhere on DuPont grounds where they worked and filed suit for discrimination

Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order to satisfy rule 11 an attorney must submit everything to the court for 1) proper purpose, 2) warranted under current law and not frivolous, and 3) based on factual evidence to support such claims.

Facts. Employer DuPont issued a rule banning the display or any symbols on the DuPont grounds. The 6 plaintiffs all work for DuPont. They claim to be Confederate Southern Americans, all who have some sort of display of a confederate flag. One had it on his license plate, another on a hat, etc… Each one of these men where told by their supervisor to take down the symbols or to remove the symbols to not start trouble. Subsequently suit was filed against DuPont for discrimination.

Issue. Whether this civil complaint satisfies the requirements of rule 11.

Brief Fact Summary. United States wishes to “take” land owned by the Northern Indiana Public Services Company. NIPSCO filed suit against the U.S.A, and the Dunes Council filed a motion to intervene in the case.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  In order for someone to intervene as a right they must show four things:  (1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and (4) that the interest is not adequately represented by existing parties

Facts. In 1978 the United States sent notice of condemnation on 36.95 acres of Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)’s land. NIPSCO filed suit against the condemnation in 1978 as well. It wasn’t until 1981 that a hearing was requested for the case and a trial date was set for February 1982. Then in April of 1982 Save the Dunes Council filed a motion to intervene. The memorandum to support the motion was filed later in the same month. Subsequently in 1983 the two parties to the case agreed to a stipulated dismissal and a pre-trial hearing was conducted. At that hearing the Council filed memos and other documents. The United States has not responded to Council’s motion to intervene.

Issue.  Whether the Council, who has no direct ownership to the land in question, has a right to intervene in a condemnation action.

Brief Fact Summary.  After being sued for back rent, Podhorn subsequently brought suit for constrictive eviction.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. All claims rising out of the same transaction or occurrence as a pending suit must be filed regardless of jurisdictional issues; otherwise you lose your right to bring such claims.

Facts.  Before this case, Paragon filed suit against Podhorn for rent that was owed. The lower court found for Paragon Group and awarded the back rent. Subsequently, in this suit, Podhorn filed suit for constructive eviction, breach of implied warranty of habitability, false swearing, false credit reports, breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and abuse of process, prima facie tort, conversion, and malicious prosecution.  Paragon Group filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that those claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been previously filed.

Issue.  Whether compulsory claims must be filed, even if the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the new claims.  Yes. It is true that the court where Paragon Group filed its rent claim did not have jurisdiction over the Podhorn’s counter claims. However that does not alleviate the responsibilities to file those claims. It would be up to the court to determine jurisdiction and transfer the case to an appropriate court house. These claims arose from the same transaction and occurrence. Since the Podhorns did not file these claims previously they have lost their rights to. Court dismissed the action.

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff brought action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) against her employer, claiming that employer interfered with, restrained, and denied her use or attempt to exercise her right to use protected leave. Employee moved to compel responses to her interrogatories and production of documents.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  When a party is seeking discovery and that discovery appears to be relevant, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery: (1) does not come within the scope of relevance as defined under discovery rule, or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad discovery.

Facts.  Plaintiff has brought her claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. specifically, plaintiff contends that defendant “violated the FMLA [by] interfering with, restraining and denying the Plaintiff's exercise or attempt to exercise her right to use protected leave.” The plaintiff is requesting information from the plaintiff that would require a review of all employees.  Defendant objects to this interrogatory as being overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The defendant claims that there is no way to identify the designated employees other than by assessing the personnel files of every employee who works or has worked for the defendant during the past ten years. That would include thousands of employees, and the time commitment necessary to review of the personnel files would be quite burdensome.

Issue. Whether the interrogatories which would require the employer to review over 1,000 personnel files were relevant, overbroad and/or burdensome?

Brief Fact Summary.  Plaintiff is suing for wrongful termination of employment and this is a motion for dismissal based on spoliation of evidence filed by defendant.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence that will be, or most likely be used at trial. Absent bad faith a court will only impose sanctions, not grant a dismissal for such actions.

Facts. Teague was a former employee of Target. After being fired, she filed for unemployment and she brought suit alleging she was fired based on sexual discrimination. She sued for back pay, benefits, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for emotional distress. While on unemployment she was required to apply for jobs. At home she had a laptop where she had emails from employers and she also applied to jobs on that computer. She claims it crashed and her brother tried to fix it, but that she had never actually brought it to a store to check if it could be fixed.

Issue.  Whether throwing away a laptop with evidence for a trial is considered spoliation of evidence.

Brief Fact Summary. This is case where the plaintiff filed charges against her former employer for gender discrimination and retaliatory firing. Defendant moved to have Plaintiff pay for cost associated with production of electronic discovery.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. In determining cost-shifting for production of discovery courts may use the marginal-utility test.

Facts.  Over the span of several years, plaintiff claims gender discrimination occurred in her office. She was on a small team, where she felt the men left out the women. They left them out from information, meetings, bonuses and social events. She also alleges she was fired because she filed complaints with her human resource department on several occasions. At trial the plaintiff made a request that nineteen employee’s emails be searched for discriminatory statements against women and to show the men had been paid more. Of those 19, 8 are former employees. West has a practice of removing an employees emails to backup tapes upon an employee leaving. The backup tapes are not accessible. The defendant had to hire an outside vendor, Kroll, to search and restore emails from these tapes. Kroll went through 171 tapes and produced 59,653 documents for defendant. Kroll charged 181,013.28 to search and restore, he then charged 25% percent premium to expedite the process and an additional 5413.76 to format certain files. The defendant filed a motion to shift some of that cost to plaintiff.

Issue. Whether it is appropriate to shift the cost of electronic document production to the plaintiff.

Brief Fact Summary.  A police officer in pursuit hit the back of motorist’s vehicle to stop him from hurting innocent bystanders.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  For Summary Judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorably to the non-moving party only if there is a genuine dispute to alleged facts. Also the objective reasonable standard for violations of the fourth amendment is a balancing test between the person’s rights and government’s rights.

Facts.  A Georgia county deputy clocked motorist car diving at speeds of 73 miles per hour in a 55 mile-an-hour zone. The officer activated his lights and the motorist sped away accelerating his speed. The officer called it in over his dispatch and several officers including Scott joined in. After six minutes and 10 miles of a high speed chase, Officer Scott has permission to employ precision intervention techniques to stop Harris and was told to stop him. Office Scott rear-ended the car, it spun and flipped over. Harris was badly injured and now a quadriplegic.

Issue.  Whether the summary judgment standard of viewing the facts in light most favorably of the non-moving party, requires the court to put more weight in testimony than video tape evidence to the contrary. Also, whether the police officer actions were reasonable under the fourth amendment is the second issue.

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff was struck by someone driving a Budget Rental Car.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.  A person’s domicile is decided by several factual considerations the court will take into consideration, and a federal court must have complete diversity between parties in order to have jurisdiction over the case.

Facts. Angela Ochoa was driving a Ford Explorer. She was rear-ended by Paul Gaully who was driving a Budget rental car. Ms. Ochoa brought suit in state court against Mr. Gaully, Budget Rent A Car Systems Inc, and PV Holdings Corp (the Corporation in charge of Budget). When Ms Ochoa filed suit Mr. Gaully lived in Texas with family, having evacuated after Hurricane Katrina. PB Holding Corp filed a motion to remove the case to federal court, and Ms. Ochoa filed a motion to remand the case back to state court.

Issue.  Whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case when a defendant was domicile in the same state as the plaintiff state, but has since evacuated.

Brief Fact Summary.  A fire broke out in a RI nightclub during a show where over a 100 people died and several more were injured.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under the Multiparty, Multiform, Trial Jurisdiction Act, (MMTJA) cases arises from a local disaster where state law will apply, and a majority of the plaintiffs are from that state, and the primary defendant is from that state, the federal court will abstain from hearing the case.

Facts.  On February 20, 2003 a band called the Great White hosted a show in a Rhode Island Club called “The Station.” As part of their show the band members and their manager lit pyrotechnics, also called stage fireworks. The sparks from the fireworks ignited ceiling and wall insulation and flames engulfed the small club in less than three minutes. There were reportedly 412 people present that night, 100 died and over 200 were left injured. The people that left the building unharmed have considerable emotional damage from that night. In the first law suit many parties where joined as defendants; the nightclub owners, the band, the band manager, the management company, record label, nightclub owner’s corporation, a real estate company, manufactures of the insulation and pyrotechnics […] etc. The defendants moved to remove the case to federal court under the MMTJA. Plaintiffs filed a remand action in response.

Issue.  Whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under the MMTJA when the case may fit into the abstention requirements of the statute.