Civ
Pro 2 Notes
Litigation
is a “system of managing doubt”. The
devices we’re looking at today stem from this theme.
Judgment as a matter of law –
Rule 50
After
pleading and joinder of claims and parties comes discovery, then resolution
without trial (potentially), then trial.
The motions we’ll talk about today are motions that can come during trial. These motions can substitute the judge’s
decision-making for that of the fact-finder.
The judge can also use jury instructions and keeping evidence in or out
to control the jury. There is also directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the motion for a new trial.
Where do these things take place?
In a trial, there’s the plaintiff’s case, the defendant’s case, a jury
verdict, and then a judgment. After the plaintiff
has finished their case-in-chief (all evidence and witnesses), then it’s
appropriate for a motion for a directed verdict. If that motion is denied or delayed, it can
also be made after the defendant’s case in chief. After the jury verdict, you could make a
motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. So one difference between these two types of
motions is when they can happen. But all of these are now subsumed into Rule
50, which is called judgment as a matter
of law.
So
look at the Rule and see what it does.
The standard is very much like the summary judgment standard. Look back at Celotex. Rule 56 has pretty
much the same standard as Rule 50.
Here
is a classic U.S. Supreme Court case from 1933!
“If there’s a train, there must be a dead person.” What happened to the dead guy? There are some train cars. Then the dead guy, then more train cars. He gets squashed between some of the
cars. What is the railroad able to offer
as evidence on the issue of what happened in the accident? Employees in the group of cars that crashed
into him indicated that there was no
collision at all. But there is
another witness who gives some evidence of a collision. But the Court finds that this witness does
not satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of production. In theory, under the modern Rules, the railroad
could have moved for a directed verdict at that point, and it would have been
valid. Is the court weighing the
evidence or trying to protect the legal interests of the parties involved?
What’s
the difference between a motion for a directed verdict and a motion for a new
trial? Directed verdicts focus on the
adequacy of evidence. They replace the
jury’s verdict with the judge’s judgment.
It results in a final judgment.
What about the motion for a new trial?
There
are troubling similarities between
Rules 50, 56, and even the Rule 12(b) motions.