The Availability of Discovery Sanctions for Violations of Protective Orders
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Availability of Discovery Sanctions for Violations of Protective Orders on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Availability of Discovery Sanctions for Violations of Protective Orders on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Availability of Discovery Sanctions for Violations of Protective Orders on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | The Availability of Discovery Sanctions for Violations of Protective Orders on LinkedIn
He thanks his clerks Nathan Pinnell and Isabella Soparkar for outstanding research assistance.
Professor Monica Haymond’s Intervention and Universal Remedies article invites scholars to focus on the distinctive ways that public law litigation plays out in practice. This Essay takes up her challenge. By questioning common assumptions at the core of structural-reform litigation, this Essay explains the dangers of consent decrees, settlements, and broad precedents. It then goes on to argue that intervention is an important check on these risks, and should be much more freely available in structural reform cases.
He thanks his clerks Nathan Pinnell and Isabella Soparkar for outstanding research assistance.
Professor Monica Haymond’s Intervention and Universal Remedies article invites scholars to focus on the distinctive ways that public law litigation plays out in practice. This Essay takes up her challenge. By questioning common assumptions at the core of structural-reform litigation, this Essay explains the dangers of consent decrees, settlements, and broad precedents. It then goes on to argue that intervention is an important check on these risks, and should be much more freely available in structural reform cases.
He thanks Malcolm Yeary, Maggie Wells, Savannah Kostrzewa, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team.
The Florida defendant files a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)—asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant it? More specifically, does having an anonymous John Doe as a defendant categorically preclude diversity jurisdiction?