You are here

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Displaying 31 - 40 of 1211
Format: 2019
Greater than or equal to
April 7, 2016
James D. Garbolino, Marcia S. Krieger, Peter J. Messitte

Judge James Garbolino, Judge Marcia Krieger (D. Colo.), and Judge Peter Messitte (D. Md.) discuss the five defenses to an action for return of a child. These five defenses are narrowly defined and require specific standards of proof.

March 5, 2016
James D. Garbolino

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224 (2014)

Equitable Tolling | Return Despite Article 12 Defense | Delay | Settlement

January 20, 2016
James D. Garbolino

Nicolson v. Pappalardo, 605 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2010)

Consent and Acquiescence

Article 13 establishes a defense to return when the left-behind parent has consented or acquiesced to the removal or retention of the child. Consent or acquiescence, however, must be clearly established.


January 20, 2016
James D. Garbolino

Mendez v. May, 778 F.3d 337 (1st Cir. 2015)
(Petition for Certiorari docketed on June 17, 2015)

Habitual Residence


December 2, 2015
Timothy P. Harkness, Rahim Moloo, Patrick Oh, Charline Yim

At an increasing rate, U.S. courts are hearing cases in which parties seek evidence located abroad or parties to a foreign or international proceeding seek evidence located in the United States. International discovery issues pose difficult and complex challenges, at both the procedural and substantive levels. This guide seeks to address these issues by providing a practical overview of cross-border discovery questions that commonly arise in civil cases before federal courts.

Downloadable file:
PDF icon Download 136 pages
December 1, 2015
Paul W. Grimm

Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which became effective on December 1, 2015, specify that sanctions for failure to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) require findings that (1) the ESI should have been preserved in the anticipation of litigation, (2) the party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and (3) it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery. The rule does not create a duty to preserve ESI. Instead, it leaves in place the common-law duty.

December 1, 2015
John George Koeltl

This video describes amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), 26(c)(1)(B), 26(d), and 34 that became effective on December 1.

Amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) are designed to promote proportional discovery: discovery tailored by the judge and the parties to meet the reasonable needs of the case. Proportional discovery provides the information needed by the litigants to prove their cases, but avoids excess and waste. Judges are encouraged to engage in a dialogue with the parties regarding the amount of discovery reasonably needed to resolve the litigation.

December 1, 2015
Gene E.K. Pratter

An amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which became effective on December 1, 2015, resulted from a finding that civil litigation is resolved more quickly and less expensively when parties and lawyers cooperate. The amendment makes explicit the rules "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."

December 1, 2015
David G. Campbell

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which became effective on December 1, 2015, foster more cost-effective discovery through cooperation, proportionality, early and active case management, and considerations of electronically stored information (ESI).

This video is an overview of amendments to Rules 1, 16, 26, 34, and 37.

The following videos also relate to Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure: Civil Rules 2015:


Subscribe to Civil Litigation & Procedure