1. How can a party protect itself from an abusive discovery process? Do not provide full discovery. Do not provide inside information. One must object on all grounds. One most file a motion to dismiss fraud count for failure to pint to any specific misrepresentation. One could seek a protective order. One could hire in an agency to show out to disclosure information.
Mazda's was to seek a protective order. Much of the information requested by the Chudasamas involved confidential documents that went to the heart of Mazda's business. They sought marketing studies, internal memoranda, and documentation on the history of the development and design of the MPV minivan and other vehicles. Fearing disclosure of this information to its competitors or to other potential plaintiffs, Mazda sought a non- sharing protective order that would keep the information under seal and prohibit the Chudasamas from sharing Mazda's proprietary information with anyone. They filed a motion for such a protective order on August 16, 1994. The Chudasamas objected, but indicated that they would accept a "sharing" protective order that would allow them to share the information with similarly situated plaintiffs, but not with anyone else. A protective order was issued by the court for the protection of Mazda's confidential information from disclosure to its competitors.
2. What is the practical consequences of a default judgment being entered against the defendants? The default consequences would be at the court discretion. The court decided that Mazda would provide the plaintiff with all information, the discovery. The court based their decision in the plaintiff’s failure because Mazda of withheld information.
3. Is a ruling of this nature likely to have any impact on the litigation process in this country? Finding that the district court abused its discretion, we vacate the order imposing sanctions and direct that the case be assigned on remand to another district judge. Both parties fully briefed.
1. Why was Adarand Constructors, as low bidder on the guardrail subcontract, not awarded the job? Mountain Gravel awarded the subcontract to Gonzales, despite Adarand's low bid, and Mountain Gravel's Chief Estimator has submitted an affidavit stating that Mountain Gravel would have accepted Adarand's bid, had it not been for the additional payment it received by hiring Gonzales instead. A violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The prime contract's terms provide that Mountain Gravel would receive additional compensation if it hired subcontractors certified as small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The decision was also made because of race. Despite having to pay a higher price, the government selected Gonzales Construction, a minority owned-firm
2. What were the holdings of Bakke, Fullilove, and Wygant? Why did these decisions not resolve the standard of review question? Bakke, Klutznick, and Wygant holdings were to adapt a lenient standard, resembling intermediate scrutiny, in assessing the constitutionality of federal race-based action. All Americans must be treated equally in selection and promotion processes -- regardless of race, color or gender. These processes must be based on the concept of merit as the primary mechanism to ensure equal opportunity and equal protection. Race, color and gender may be taken into consideration, but only as part of a multitude of other factors that can be shown to enhance the expertise and experience of the particular organization.
3. What is the conflict between the opinions in Croson and Metro Broadcasting? Croson and the court agreed that the Fourteenth amendment requires strict scrutiny of all race-based action . The Metro Broadcasting involved a Fifth Amendment challenge to two race-based. The constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government than it does on a State to afford equal protection of the laws. A majority of the court in Croson held that the standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification and that the single standard of review for racial classifications should be strict scrutiny. The state or local subdivision has the authority to eradicate the effects of private discrimination.
4. Why is the holding in this case so important? Does this opinion stand for the proposition that affirmative action programs are unconstitutional? In sum, there are good reasons to argue for and against affirmative action. Indeed, people who believe in a society where no racial or ethnic category dominates fall on both sides of the debate. The disagreement, then, is not whether people of all colors should have equal opportunity, but affirmative action is part of the solution or part of the problem. Affirmative action programs that use racial and ethnic criteria as a basis for decision making are subject to strict judicial scrutiny
5. Why did the Supreme Court decide not to resolve the issue of which party should be awarded the guardrail subcontract? The Supreme Court in Adarand was careful to dispel any suggestion that it was implicitly holding unconstitutional all federal affirmative action measures employing racial or ethnic classifications. A majority of the Justices rejected the proposition that strict scrutiny of affirmative action both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country may justify the use of race-based remedial measures in certain circumstances.
4. Code of Business Conduct at FedEx- the Code of Business Conduct requires that you avoid any activity or interest, which might reflect unfavorably upon the integrity of the employee and FedEx.