Question I. A
 

It is not possible to determine whether the case is properly brought in Federal Court. This is because to bring a case to Federal Court you need either one of two things. A federal question based on the Constitution or you need to have diversity between the P and D. This where P lives in state different than D. The diversity question has to be over $50,000 in damages. (See 28 U.S.C. 1332.)
 

In P's complaint, it does not state whether they both actually live in the state, or have an intent to remain in the state. If they do not live in the same state, then it is properly brought because the damages are over $50,000.
 

Question I. B
 

Doe's pre-answer motion is due 20 days after he is served with the complaint. This is under Rule 12(a). If Doe waives formal service of process though he then has 60 days.
 

Question I. C
 

Doe's answer is due either the same time as the pre-answer motion, which is 20 days under Rule 12(g). Otherwise, if his pre-answer motion is denied, then he has an extra 10 days for all answer under Rule 12(a)(1)(A). Again if he waives formal service of process, he would have an additional 60 days. Rule 4(d)(3).
 

Question I. D
 

No it is not possible for Paul to add additional claims after January 22 without leave of the court. Under Rule 15(a), once D responds to the complaint, then the court is involved and they must determine the amendments from there.
 

Question I. E
 

The most likely pre-answer motion to be dismissed is 12(b)(1) motion. P does not state plainly the reason why it is in the Federal District Court. It is unclear if there is a diversity question because we do not know what states they live in. However, Rule 15 will probably allow it to be amended because of the notice pleading and they allow fairly liberally. If not allowed to be amended then they will probably be allowed to bring it again so it will be without prejudice.
 

Question II. A
 

The responsive pleading that will be filed is an answer that will either generally deny he was negligent in paragraph II. This will be followed by Rule 8(b) that a party must state in short, plain terms the party's defenses and shall deny the allegations the party alleges. Or under Rule 8(c) he could plead an affirmative defense of contributory negligence, saying P also ignored a traffic light. D could also counterclaim alleged P to be responsible for D's injuries as well.
 

Question II. B
 

D would have the burden of pleading that his car had faulty brakes because he would use this as a defense, so it would be placed on him to show this under Rule 8(c).
 

Question II. C
 

If a party fails to assert a mechanical malfunction, it will not be waived because Rule 15 allows amendments to the pleadings. Rule 15 you can amend fairly liberally when justice so requires, unless it is in bad faith. In this case a mechanical malfunction would be required in the complaint for justice to occur.
 

Question II. D
 

Paul can determine whether Doe's contributory negligence is an affirmative defense under the substantive state law. Contributory negligence is listed as an aff. defense.
 

Question II. E
 

If Doe calls contributory negligence an affirmative defense P will only have to reply if the court orders him to reply. Rule 7(a) says a court can order a reply to an answer.
 

Question III. A
 

Rule 26(a) lists the required initial disclosures, which a party must give without a request. Under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) they must give the name and information about their witnesses or people who will likely have discoverable information. Must give all relevant documents, Rule 26(a)(1)(B). They give computations of damages Rule 26(a)(1)(C). They also must give any insurance agreements or experts who will testify at trial.
 

Question III. B
 

Number 1 is outside the scope of discovery because it is not relevant to the case. Rule 26(d)(1) states discovery that any matter not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved. His injuries to past accidents do not pertain to his injuries from this accident, and also it does not appear to be reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence.
 

Number 2 would be privileged under the attorney-client relationship. Rule 26(b)(1) it is
discoverable if it is not privileged. This would be privileged.
 

Number 3 will be discoverable if these opinions will be presented at trial. However, since P obtained them he probably will not present their opinions in trial since they are for D. So D will have to show exceptional circumstances why he needs P's discovery of the tire-track examiners Rule 26(b)(4)(B). He probably will be able to find his own examiners at this own expense it will not be discoverable.
 

Number 4 will also be discoverable because even though Paul's physician is an expert to his medical condition, he was also an eyewitness to the incident. He will be treated as a normal witness. Rule 26(a)(1)(A) requires disclosure of anyone who is likely to have discoverable information relevant to disputed facts. As an eye-witness he does have this information.
 

Number 5 may be discoverable under Rule 26(a)(1)(B). It requires disclosure of all documents that are relevant to the disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings. Depending on how D responds to the complaint, it seems however highly unlikely it will be in there.
 

Question III. C
 

The tire-track examiners will have to be disclosed only if they are going to testify at trial. This

is under Rule 26(a)(2)(A). However, since they found or support D, P will not have them testify. Under Rule 26(b)(4)(B) a non-testifying expert is generally immune from discovery. Unless D can show exceptional circumstances that he cannot obtain these facts or opinions anywhere else, he will not be allowed to use them.
 

Question III. D
 

If Doe seeks a motion to compel under Rule 30(b) and Rule 37 for production of written interviews with Paul's attorney and Paul himself, it will not be granted because that is privileged information under Rule 26(b)(1). With Paul's attorney and the tire examiners, it might be granted if he can show there is a necessity or any indication or claim that denial of such production would unduly prejudice the preparation of the party's case and cause him any hardship or injustice. The work-product doctrine is designed to protect the mental processes of the lawyer's work. Rule 26(b)(3).
 

A motion to compel written interviews conducted by Paul's attorney with Dr. Green will not be granted because under Rule 26(a)(1)(A) they had to disclose his name as an actual witness, therefore D could just as easily obtain his own interview.
 

Question III. E
 

Paul can subpoena the non-party under Rule 45 to supply this under Rule 34. If the party fails to do this then under Rule 37 they can make a motion for contempt. They do not have to make a motion to compel prior because Manufacturer is a non-party and non-parties are not given as much respect in a case as a party is.
 

Question IV. A
 

Paul will be allowed to amend under Rule 15(c) of Relation Back. Rule 15(c) states that if the claim is barred due to statute of limitation, it will count as to the original complaint if the amended pleading arose out of the same occurrence, same operative facts. Rule 15(c)(3). The amendment can change the parties if it is the same operative facts.
 

Question IV. B
 

Doe will not prevail because if Paul has an affidavit opposing Dr. Green then there is a genuine issue of material fact. Rule 56(c) states that a summary judgment is granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.
 

Question IV. C
 

Paul will prevail because one suit only precludes a second where the parties and the cause are identical. The causes of action are identical where the evidence necessary to sustain a verdict would sustain the first and the parties have to be in privity, closely connected. In this situation, they are not closely connected.
 

Question IV. D
 

Paul can prevail in collateral estoppel by using the offensive use of collateral estoppel. This is where P stops D from using a defense D previously used unsuccessfully in an action with another party. If the judge determines it was fairly litigated before, it will be precluded.
 

Question IV. E
 

If both motions for summary judgment are granted, then Paul can appeal Doe's summary judgment because there is nothing left to decide and Manufacturer cannot appeal Paul's summary

judgment because damages must still be determined.
 

Question V. A
 

Paul may appeal the preliminary injunction motion but not the motion to amend. An interlocutory appeal is allowed for certain things under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In this case a preliminary injunction will cause Manufacturer to stop doing something, which is very important and will have dire consequences. Interlocutory appeals are allowed if district court grants, continues, modifies or refuses or dissolves injunctions. An amendment is appealable at the end of trial when it is final, because appeals only lie from final decisions which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the Court to do but execute it. Under 28 U.S.C. § 129 1.
 

Question V. B
 

For the preliminary injunction's review, the app. court will apply the abuse of discretion, because he made a decision which melded both law and fact in order for the system to run. Also again for the amendment appeal they will apply abuse of discretion because the judge made a decision in order for the system to run.
 

Question V. C
 

The trial court probably will allow the dismissal of the anti-trust claim because of collateral estoppel and the defensive use. D has already won on this issue so to prevent D from incurring more expenses, it will be dismissed.
 

Question V. D
 

Yes, because there still is a question of law in negligence against Doe for damages. In Beacon it was decided that where there is both, the jury will find for the facts and the judge will apply the law in equity. Rule 42(b) and Rule 47 allow the use of discretion by the judge to determine this.
 

Question V. E
 

The special interrogatories against Paul would effect the preliminary injunction because the judge will apply the facts found by the jury to decide the injunction.
 

Question VI. A
 

Paul must file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the final judgment. Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
 

Question VI. B
 

The trial court probably will not grant Doe's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if??? a motion for a Directed Verdict at the Close of the evidence. Under Rule 50 if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the judge can take the verdict away.
 

Question VI. C
 

In order to grant a new trial under Rule 59, there has to be a flawed procedure or a flawed verdict. In this case it seems sufficient that the jury were all drawn from the county where the company was based and the evidence showed that the Manufacturer was aware of faulty products. It seems the jury composition was not enough to show the verdict went against the weight of the evidence, however, independent investigation might be.
 

Question VI. D
 

If Paul motioned for a directed verdict, a judgment N.O.V. or judgment as a matter of law may be granted.
 

Question VI. E
 

The Court of Appeals should uphold the denial of the second claim because it was brought during the trial and under Rule 15 amendments are not usually allowed if they are in bad faith or prejudice the party. Here it would have prejudiced Manufacturer because they had no notice.
 

On the other hand, if Manufacturer did not disclose evidence, the amendment should be granted.