MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7024533473

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions-The Need for Supreme Court Ordered National Uniformity

2000· article· en· W7024533473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureQuarter (Canadian coin)SanctionsCivil procedureSupreme Court Decisions
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joel Slawotsky"Nearly a quarter century has elapsed since the Supreme Court last addressed in a significant fashion discovery sanctions under Rule 371 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 In the ensuing years, the federal district and appellate courts 3 have been without further guidance with respect to policies and procedures for sanction imposition.4 However, notwithstanding the dearth of Supreme Court opinions on discovery sanctions, it is generally * Joel Slawotsky is an attorney with RUBINBAUM LLP in New York.The author is a former law clerk to the Honorable Charles H. Tenney, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.1. Subsequent to its initial adoption in 1938, Rule 37 has been amended four times, most recently in 1993.The historical perspective of Rule 37 is provided in detail in the official notes to the Rule and they require no further elaboration.With respect to the 1993 amendments, the sense that discovery abuse had become rampant led to their development.See Craig Enoch, Incivility in the Legal System?Maybe It's the Rules, 47 SMU L. REV.199, 222 (1994).2. See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976).While the Supreme Court mentioned Rule 37 in three subsequent opinions, Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio, 119 S. Ct. 1915 (1999), Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd.V. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 699 (1982), and Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980), it was in National Hockey, 427 U.S. at 641-43, that the Court articulated the goals of Rule 37 and provided "some guidance" to the district and circuit courts.It should be noted that the Court did uphold the trial court's Rule 37 sanctions each of the last four times the Court reviewed discovery sanctions.See Cunningham, 119 S. Ct. at 1922-23; Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 709; Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 767-68; National Hockey, 427 U.S. at 643.3. While this article deals with sanctions in federal courts, the problem of discovery abuse exists in state courts as well.See

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0140.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→