Assignments MGMT10

.docx

School

California State University, Sacramento *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChiefElementAlbatross34

Take one ethics case, one contracts case, one torts case, and one bis crime case. breif the cases using the IRAC method. 1, first facts, 2. questions/issues of the case, 3 what is the law, 4 what is your analysis https://www.iracmethod.com/irac-methodology

Soren Myers MGMT 10-06 IRAC Analysis Assignments For my ethics case I chose Haeger v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co, 793 F. 1122 (9th Cir. 2015). In this case, Goodyear withheld documents and otherwise gave false responses during discovery. The primary issue in the case of Haeger v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co, 793 F. 1122 (9th Cir. 2015) revolves around the imposition of sanctions against Goodyear for its misconduct during the discovery process, particularly its withholding of documents and provision of false responses. Additionally, a crucial aspect of this case is the involvement of Goodyear's in-house counsel in reviewing these false discovery responses. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and relevant case law, parties involved in litigation are required to engage in good faith during the discovery process. This includes the duty to provide complete and accurate responses to discovery requests, as well as the obligation to preserve and produce relevant documents. Courts have the authority to impose sanctions when parties fail to meet these obligations. In this case, Goodyear's actions of withholding documents and providing false responses during the discovery process constitute a clear violation of its obligations under the FRCP. These actions hindered the plaintiff's ability to obtain critical information and undermined the

integrity of the court process. Moreover, the involvement of Goodyear's in-house counsel in reviewing and presumably approving these false responses raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The court applied the established legal standards for imposing sanctions and found that Goodyear's conduct was so egregious that drastic sanctions were warranted. The court likely considered factors such as the extent of the misconduct, whether the misconduct was intentional or negligent, and the impact of the misconduct on the opposing party's ability to present their case. The involvement of in-house counsel in this misconduct likely contributed to the severity of the sanctions imposed. In Haeger v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co, the court correctly applied the law governing discovery sanctions. Given Goodyear's serious misconduct, which included the withholding of documents and false responses during discovery, coupled with the involvement of in-house counsel in reviewing these responses, the court's decision to impose drastic sanctions was justified. This case underscores the importance of parties engaging in good faith during the discovery process and the serious consequences that can result from misconduct, especially when legal counsel is implicated in such conduct. For my contracts case I chose Hadley v. Baxendale (English Exchequer Court 1854). Hadley operated a mill that ground grain into flour. One of the wooden shafts that operated the mill broke, so he had it sent off for repair, using Baxendale to deliver the shaft. Baxendale failed

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help