Procedural Postcard from America

Full Text:


American procedure has long been distinctive. It was part of the common law family of procedure, but different from the other common law countries, and even more different from the civil law countries. Gradually, the other common law countries have changed their procedures to be more similar to that in the civil law countries, which have at the same time been introducing elements that resemble some traditional features of common law procedure. In that sense, harmonization seems to be happening in the rest of the world, except America. That remains true, but ongoing procedural changes in America mean that US procedure is coming to resemble the procedure of the rest of the world a bit more than it did a generation ago. This article reports on the most recent reform package for the US federal courts, which will be under active consideration in America in 2013–2014.

About the Author

Richard Marcus
University of California Hastings
United States
Professor and Head of Chair in Litigation at University of California Hastings College of the Law (200 McAllister St., San Francisco, California, 94102-4978, USA


1. Andrews N, English Civil Procedure (OUP 2003), 124.

2. Burbank S (ed), Report of the Third Circuit Task Force on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (American Judicatur Society 1989).

3. –– ‘The Rules Enabling Act of 1934’ (1982) 130 U Pa L Rev 1015.

4. –– ‘The Transformation of American Civil Procedure: The Example of Rule 11’ (1989) 137 U Pa L Rev 1925.

5. Burke T, Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights (Berkeley 2002).

6. Chayes A, ‘The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation’ (1976) 89 Harv L Rev 1281.

7. Cooter R, & Rubinfeld D, ‘Reforming the New Discovery Rules’ (1995) 84 Geo LJ 61.

8. Damaška M, The Faces of Justice and State Authority (YUP 1986), 238–39.

9. Friedenthal J, ‘A Divided Supreme Court Adopts Discovery Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ (1981) 69 Calif L Rev 806, 818.

10. Gavin S, ‘Managerial Justice in a Post-Daubert World’ (2006) 234 FRD 196, 196. 11. Goodman C, Justice and Civil Procedure in Japan (Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry 2004) 283–89.

11. Junker A, ‘Access to Documentary Evidence in German Civil Procedure’ in P Gottwald (ed), Litigation in England and Germany (Gieseking 2010) 51, 52.

12. Kagan R, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law (HUP 2001).

13. Marcus R, ‘Cooperation and Litigation: Thoughts on the American Experience’ (2013) 61 Kansas L Rev 821.

14. –– ‘Discovery Containment Redux’ (1998) 39 Bos Col L Rev 747, 753–68.

15. –– ‘E-Discovery Beyond the Federal Rules’ (2008) 37 U Balt L Rev 321, 328–33.

16. –– ‘Exceptionalism and Convergence: Form versus Content and Categorical Views of Procedure’ in J Walker & O Chase (eds), Common Law and Civil Law and the Future of Categories (LexisNexis Canada 2010), 521.

17. –– ‘Putting American Procedural Exceptionalism into a Globalized Context’ (2005) 53 Am J Comp L 709.

18. –– ‘Reining in the American Lawyer: The New Role of American Judges’ (2003) 27 Hast Int’l & Comp L Rev 2.

19. Mehren AT von, ‘Some Comparative Reflections on First Instance Civil Procedure: Recent Reforms in German Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules’ (1988) 63 Notre Dame L Rev 609.

20. Miller A, ‘Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the “Class Action Problem”’ (1979) 92 Harv L Rev 664.

21. –– The August 1983 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Promoting Effective Case Management and Lawyer Responsibility (Federal Judicial Center 1984).Richard Marcus 25

22. O’Scannlain D ‘Access to Justice Within the Federal Courts – a Ninth Circuit Perspective’ (2012) 90 Ore L Rev 1033, 1035.

23. Peckham R, ‘The Federal Judge as Case Manager: The New Role in Guiding a Case From Filing to Disposition’ (1981) 69 Calif L Rev 770.

24. Pound R, ‘The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction With the Administration of Justice’ (1906) 29 Rep. of the ABA 395, 408–15.

25. ‘The Pound Conference Recommendations: A Blueprint for the Justice System in the Twenty-First Century’ (1976) 76 FRD 277–336.

26. Powell, J, ‘Dissenting from Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ (1980) 440 US 997.

27. Priest G, ‘The Invention of Enterprise Liability: A Critical History of the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Tort Law’ (1985) 14 J Legal Stud 461.

28. Resnik J, ‘Managerial Judges’ (1982) 92 Harv L Rev 374.

29. Rhee CH van, Introduction to European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Intersentia 2005) 3–14.

30. Rude G, Revolutionary Europe 1783–1815 (John Wiley & Sons 1964) 21–22.

31. Subrin S, ‘Fishing Expeditions Allowed: The Historical Background of the 1938 Federal Discovery Rules’ (1998) 39 Bos Col L Rev 691.

32. –– ‘How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Historical Perspective’ (1987) 135 U Pa L Rev 909.

33. Trocker N, ‘Transnational Litigation, Access to Evidence and U.S. Discovery: Learning form American “Exceptionlism”?’ in R Stürner, & M Kawano (eds), Current Topics of International Litigation (Mohr Siebeck 2009) 145, 156.

34. Uzelac A, ‘Survival of the Third Legal Tradition?’ in J Walker & O Chase (eds), Common Law and Civil Law and the Future of Categories (LexisNexis Canada 2010), 377.

35. Wiggins E, Willging T, & Stienstra D, Report on Rule 11 (Federal Judicial Center 1991).

36. Wright C, Miller C, & Marcus R, Federal Practice & Procedure (2nd edn, West 1994) vol 8, para 2008.1.

37. –– Federal Practice & Procedure (3rd edn, West 2010) para 2008.1.

38. Zuckerman A, Civil Procedure (LexisNexis 2003), 42–43.

Supplementary files

For citation: Marcus R. Procedural Postcard from America. Russian Law Journal. 2013;1(1):9-25.

Views: 990


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)