CIV PRO TWO PROBLEM ONE

...

.....................................................................Part One: Paul is a passenger on a Deftco bus. The bus on which he is riding rams into the rearend of a truck on a clear and moonlit night. Paul is injured, consults a lawyer, and then sues Deftco Bus Company, the busdriver named Bud, and the truck driver named Tuck. Tuck files an indemnity cross-claim against co-defendants Bud and Deftco. Tuck alleges that Bud was talking to himself just prior to the accident. Tuck further alleges that Bud's poor vision was obviously a contributing factor that helped to cause this accident. The police report for this accident lists several witnesses. One witness, named Wilma, was driving her automobile near the bus at the time of the accident. Another witness named Wally was standing on a hill, approximately one mile away at the time of the accident--on a clear and moonlit night.Wally says that he saw Bud talking to himself just prior to the accident. All pleadings have been filed, and this case is thus ripe for discovery. What discovery could/should be undertaken, as of this point in the litigation? (Put another way, setup a brief Discovery Plan--based on the given scraps of info. Don't move to Part Two until you've first done this portion of the Problem.) .............................................................Part Two: Tuck files a motion seeking a number of standard psychiatric and eye examinations of Bud. None of these tests are unusual, nor are any of them painful or harmful in any way. They will be performed by qualified experts in their respective fields. (What are the elements for Rule 35 discovery and are both in issue?) The parties exchange interrogatories. Paul seeks income and insurance information from Deftco. Paul also asks Bud whether he was fired after this accident, or reassigned to another job or route for Deftco. Both Bud and Deftco object to Plaintiff's interrogatories. Paul's lawyer then files a Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories--and sanctions, for the defendants' failure to provide this information, and that they should have provided it even before Paul asked for it. Will Tuck's motion be granted? Will Paul's motion be granted? Can Bud obtain discovery regarding Wally's eyesight?     ......................................................Part Three: Paul's lawyer (Larry) notices the deposition of Wilma. At her deposition, Larry first asks her whether Bud was drunk. Bud's lawyer instructs her not to answer the question. Bud's lawyer then terminates the deposition, on the basis that Larry cannot continue to ask such questions in bad faith. Larry then seeks a court order, seeking relief from the judge. (What in the world does he want?) Bud responds with a cross-motion for sanctions, on the basis that Larry began to ask a series of questions that were in bad faith. You are the judge. How should you rule? Are any sanctions appropriate? Against either lawyer? .......................................................Part Four: Assume that Wilma must continue her deposition on a later date. At deposition (#2), Larry again asks Wilma "Was Bud drunk?" Wilma testifies that "the busdriver was obviously drunk. The driver of the bus was weaving. The investigating police officer said that his blood alcohol level was way above the threshold for citing him for drunken driving. Further, Bud's speech was slurred, when I saw him immediately after the accident." Paul's lawyer then makes a Motion for Summary Judgment against defendant Bud--seeking to establish Bud's liability for this accident. Paul's affidavits in support of plaintiff's motion are Wilma's deposition testimony, and the police report--which includes a citation against Bud for driving under the influence of alcohol, making him presumptively drunk under the applicable law. Bud's lawyer files a counteraffidavit in opposition to this motion, relying only on Bud's deposition testimony, wherein he admits that he was drinking--but denies that he ever swerved or did anything to cause this accident. The gist of Bud's opposition to the motion for summary judgment is that Bud has often driven under the influence of alcohol and never had an accident. You are the judge. How should you rule on this motion?

..FedProb Page