Hallows Lecture: Ambition and Aspiration: Living Greatly in the Law

non

They Were Meant for Each Other: Professor Edward Cooper and the Rules Enabling Act

This introduction to the essays in this Symposium illuminates Professor Ed Cooper\u27s years as Reporter to the Civil Rules Committee by first briefly describing those who preceded him in the position and his own background. We then describe some of Ed Cooper\u27s many contributions to the Civil Rules Committee, the Federal Rules, rulemaking, and civil procedure by examining the present state of the Rules Committees\u27 work under the Rules Enabling Act. We conclude that after almost eighty years of experience under that Act, it is working well in large part because of the sound leadership provided by Ed Cooper over his twenty years as Reporter. It was during these years that the Committee developed an approach to rulemaking that was at once transparent and empirical, with multiple opportunities for participation by members of the public, the bench, the academy, and the bar; with many informal opportunities for consultation with members of Congress and the Executive Branch; and with an understanding by the Committee of its role in relation to the courts, Congress, and the Executive. Two episodes of recent rulemaking and related activity are described as examples of how well the Rules Enabling Act is working, in large part because of the very flexibility and discretion the Act has provided since 1934. One of those episodes occurred when Judge Anthony Scirica chaired the Standing Committee and then- Judge David Levi chaired the Civil Rules Committee. The other occurred when Judge Lee Rosenthal and Judge Mark Kravitz were the chairs of the Standing and Civil Rules Committees, respectively. Both episodes provide a basis for optimism about the future. And they make clear Ed Cooper\u27s continued steady role in supporting and cultivating the robust good health of the rulemaking process and the institutional values it protects

The Reappearing Judge

This is the published version

Breaking the Boilerplate Habit in Civil Discovery

No more boilerplate in discovery requests or responses. That is the clear message of the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inspired by that message, some judges have taken a firm stand, warning lawyers to change their ways or face serious sanctions. Will it be enough to root out practices deeply engrained in discovery culture? This Article examines the “anti boilerplate” rule changes and the cases applying them. We endorse the rule changes and applaud the judges who have spoken out. But if real change is to occur, more judges—many more judges—must join them. As judges consider how they might contribute to the cause, we offer three points of guidance. First, while boilerplate objections get the most attention, boilerplate requests are an equal part of the problem. The 2015 amendments target both. Second, we must be careful not to equate “pattern” with boilerplate. As several recent projects have shown, the use of topic-specific discovery protocols—which use carefully-crafted standard requests—can start the parties on the path to tailored, targeted, efficient, and fair discovery. Third, judges should resist using waiver as a standard sanction for boilerplate objections. When the responding party has no viable objections to make, waiver provides no deterrence against boilerplate objections. And when the discovery requests exceed the boundaries of permissible discovery, waiver can lead to the parties getting bogged down in the discovery of irrelevant matters. While judges are often reluctant to go down the path of imposing cost sanctions, in many cases that approach will supply both a more effective deterrent and a more calibrated response. The goal is worth it; reducing boilerplate in discovery is an important step toward achieving proportional discovery

Structures of falcipain-2 and falcipain-3 bound to small molecule inhibitors: implications for substrate specificity.

Falcipain-2 and falcipain-3 are critical hemoglobinases of Plasmodium falciparum, the most virulent human malaria parasite. We have determined the 2.9 A crystal structure of falcipain-2 in complex with the epoxysuccinate E64 and the 2.5 A crystal structure of falcipain-3 in complex with the aldehyde leupeptin. These complexes represent the first crystal structures of plasmodial cysteine proteases with small molecule inhibitors and the first reported crystal structure of falcipain-3. Our structural analyses indicate that the relative shape and flexibility of the S2 pocket are affected by a number of discrete amino acid substitutions. The cumulative effect of subtle differences, including those at "gatekeeper" positions, may explain the observed kinetic differences between these two closely related enzymes