Judge Xavier Rodriguez on Possession, Custody, or Control from the Meet and Confer Podcast
Key Discovery Points: ESI Protocol Objection Denial Party
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 514: Listen and Learn -- Discovery (Civ Pro)
eDiscovery Case Law Podcast: How Failing to Meet and Confer Effectively Can Lead to Sanctions
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn -- Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro)
Direct Examination: To Lead or Not to Lead
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 416: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 224: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Practicing Before the U.S. Supreme Court | Kannon Shanmugam | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Podcast - Finding the Balance
Amended Rules Five Months Later: Early Trends in Case Law and What It Means
Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
Labcorp v. Davis brought a pivotal question to the fore: Can a court certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) that includes uninjured members? The case had the potential to significantly affect forum...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued six decisions today: Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, No. 23-1039: This case addresses whether majority-group plaintiffs are held to a heighted evidentiary standard in...more
A few months ago, we wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant review in Labcorp v. Davis. As we noted at the time, Labcorp raises a long-debated question of class-action law: Can a federal court certify a...more
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral argument this week in Labcorp v. Davis (No. 24-304) to determine “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...more
On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court heard argument on an issue that has divided the circuits: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the...more
On January 24, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis (“LabCorp”),[1] to consider “[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...more
This month’s cases involve a cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on the extraterritorial application of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, a matter of first impression before the Court of Federal Claims, and a reminder...more
The Supreme Court ruled on January 15, 2025, that if a plaintiff amends a complaint to remove federal claims after a case has been removed to federal court, the federal court loses its jurisdiction over the remaining...more
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more
A defendant by any other name does not smell as sweet when it comes to removing class actions from state court to federal court, even under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). Congress passed CAFA to address...more
On May 28, 2019, a divided Supreme Court held in a 5–4 opinion that third-party counterclaim defendants cannot remove putative class actions to federal court under the general federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, or the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Parties Entitled to Seek Removal of Class Action Claims Under CAFA - In a recent decision addressing federal court jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party counterclaim...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more
From the class action defense perspective, companies and counsel alike are almost always looking for an angle to move a state-filed putative class action to the more rigorous environment of the federal courts. Congress...more
In Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 (May 28, 2019), the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether third-party counterclaim defendants in class actions have authority under the general removal...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that third-party defendants in state court actions cannot remove...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more
On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more
To the surprise of many observers (including us), the Supreme Court held last week in Home Depot USA Inc. v. George Jackson that a third-party defendant could not remove class action claims – under either the general removal...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the requirement set forth in Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit is...more
Resolving a circuit split regarding the jurisdictional nature of Title VII’s charge-filing requirement—the statutory requirement that an employee who alleges that he or she has been subjected to unlawful treatment is required...more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement—whereby an aggrieved employee first must file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or a state...more