Welcome to the June 2016 edition of the Commercial Litigation Update, an e-publication that features articles authored by the attorneys in Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Commercial Litigation Practice Group. To read an article from this month's edition of the Commercial Litigation Update e-newsletter, click on the hyperlinks in the article below.
If you are not currently on our mailing list and would like to receive issues of the e-newsletter directly via e-mail, visit our subscription page to sign up.
Is the Road to Sanctions Paved With Specific Intentions? The Resurgence of Gross Ne gligence Under New Rule 37(e)(2)
Among many changes to federal discovery practice, the 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure curtailed courts' power to impose adverse inferences and other harsh sanctions on parties who fail to preserve electronically stored information ("ESI"). This article looks at recent examples of how the amendments to Rule 37, contrary to what litigants had hoped for, has not lead to increased consistency and predictability.
Michigan and Indiana Courts Continue to Address Arbitration Issues
As more courts continue to address arbitration issues, this article explores two recent cases in which Michigan and Indiana courts issued decisions addressing the arbitrability of claims, as well as another case where the Michigan Supreme Court held that a construction lien claimant prevailing in arbitration can recover attorneys' fees under the Construction Lien Act.
Upcoming Supreme Court Docket Includes Cases to Watch for Commercial Lawyers
The first Monday of each October marks the beginning of a fresh term for the Supreme Court of the United States. As the 2016 term approaches, the court's docket has already begun to fill with cases that will impact commercial practitioners. While the court will continue to accept additional cases throughout the upcoming term, learn more about five cases they have already agreed to hear that may have significant implications for commercial lawyers throughout the country.
Adventures in Domesticating Judgments
Sometimes, getting a judgment is only half the battle. Collecting on that judgment can prove an entirely different challenge. This is especially true when the judgment is entered in a court in one state, but the person or company against whom the judgment was entered is in another state. Read about a recent case, The State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016 Ohio 3529, where the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the exact procedures to be used in domesticating judgments from other states in Ohio.
© 2016 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg.
This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.
Follow us on Twitter @BTLawNews.
