Question 1 (5 points)

Peter was a State X resident of a group home for adults suffering from mental and other developmental challenges. The group home was located in State X and was owned and operated by Doe. One night, a fire broke out in the home. Peter and several other residents were injured in the blaze. An investigation revealed that the smoke detector in the room at the time of the fire may not have been properly maintained. A State X statute required fully functioning smoke detectors to be installed in all residences and set out specific standards regarding the maintenance of smoke detectors in hotels, hospitals and other residential facilities. If Peter brings an action in a State X federal district court properly based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the State X smoke detector statute?

Question 1 options:

a)	It will not apply because the action has been brought in a federal court and federal common law will govern.

b)	It will apply and govern the issue of whether a properly maintained smoke detector was functioning at the time of the fire.

c)	It will not apply because the action has been brought in a federal court and federal statutory law will govern.

d)	It will not apply if state courts would choose the law of the forum state over the law of other states.

Question 2 (5 points)

On November 1, Potter suffered severe injuries after eating a box of cereal he purchased at Savemart. On the following October 15, Potter brought an action against Savemart in federal district court that was properly based on diversity of citizenship. Potter sued Savemart because he believed that Savemart had produced the cereal that injured him. In fact, the cereal was produced by Cerealco. The applicable state statute of limitations requires all personal injury actions to be filed within one year of the cause of action. Under both the applicable state law and the FRCP (Rule 3), an action is deemed to be commenced upon filing of the complaint with the court. On November 3rd, Potter served a copy of the summons and complaint on Savemart. The attorney for Savemart sent a courtesy copy of the complaint to Cerealco. The in-house counsel for Cerealco received a copy of the complaint and read it, but chose not to respond to the attorney representing Savemart. On November 10th, Potter amended his complaint, seeking to add Cerealco as a party defendant in the action. Copies of the amended complaint and summons were served on both Savemart and Cerealco. Counsel for Cerealco now seeks to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the amendment is barred by the state statute of limitations. The court should:

Question 2 options:

a)	Grant the motion because the amendment of a complaint to add a new party must be both filed and served within the applicable statute of limitations.

b)	Grant the motion because the service of the amended complaint and summons was not made within the relevant time period for it to relate back to the original claims. .

c)	Deny the motion because Cerealco knew or had reason to know within the relevant time period that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper defendant, the action would have been brought naming Cerealco.

d)	Deny the motion, an amendment to add a new party will relate back to the time of the original pleading regardless of whether the added party had reason to know of a mistake in identity made by the amending party.

Question 3 (5 points)

Pursuant to a contract dispute, Pasqual brought an action against Dante alleging that Dante breached a contract by failing to pay for goods delivered to Dante by Pasqual. To support this allegation, Pasqual decided it would be helpful to obtain a statement from Everett, who delivered the goods. Pasqual drafted interrogatories that asked Everett (among other things) whether Everett had delivered P's goods to Dante, and the date and time of delivery. Everett is unrepresented. Is Everett required to answer the interrogatories?

Question 3 options:

a)	Yes, because Pasqual is seeking non-privileged relevant material that may lead to admissible evidence.

b)	Yes, because Everett is a witness to matters that are essential to P's case.

c)	No, because Everett is not an attorney and cannot answer them by himself.

d)	No, because Everett is not a party.

Question 4 (5 points)

Peter and Daniel were involved in an automobile accident. Peter called his attorney, Anna, who met Peter at the scene of the accident. While Anna was standing talking to Peter, Anna noticed that a woman was sitting on bus bench directly facing the accident site. Anna approached the woman and asked her if she had seen the accident. The woman stated that she had and also told Anna that "the other car had run the red light and struck Peter's car." Anna wrote the woman's statement down and also made some notes (based on Peter's statements and Anna's observations at the scene of the accident) summarizing Anna's tentative theory of how the accident most likely occurred and who was at fault. After several weeks of settlement negotiations proved futile, Anna filed a lawsuit against Daniel on Peter's behalf. Counsel for Daniel learned that Anna had acquired the statement of a witness. Anna provided Daniel's attorney with the name and address of the woman Anna interviewed at the bus stop. When Daniel's attorney attempted to locate the woman, she discovered that the woman had died two weeks after the accident. Counsel for Daniel requested discovery of the substance of the witness' statement and any notes Anna made at the scene of the accident. Anna refused to turn over the woman's statement or the notes. Assume that the woman's statement is the only witness evidence as to the cause of the accident. If Daniel's attorney moves to compel Anna to disclose the woman's statements and Anna's notes, the court will most likely:

Question 4 options:

a)	Grant the motion as to both requests, because Daniel's attorney is seeking relevant information that is non-privileged.

b)	Grant the motion, but only as to the request for a copy of the woman's statement because Anna's notes are protected by work-product privilege.

c)	Deny the motion as to both requests, because both the woman's statement and Anna's notes are protected by work-product privilege.

d)	Deny the motion as to both requests because Daniel will not experience substantial hardship without the information.

Question 5 (5 points)

Petra and Dahlia were involved in an automobile accident. Petra brought suit against Dahlia in a federal district court asserting that Petra suffered personal injury as a result of Dahlia's negligence. During discovery, Dahlia submitted a list of witnesses. One of the witnesses was Warren, an 85-year-old man who was standing on the corner waiting to cross the street when the collision occurred. Petra has good reason to suspect that Warren has very poor eyesight. Since Warren is the only witness to the accident, Petra filed a motion with the court requesting that the court order W to undergo a brief eyesight examination under FRCP 35. How should the court rule on Petra's motion?

Question 5 options:

a)	Grant the motion because Warren's eyesight is a material issue in the case.

b)	Grant the motion, but only if Petra properly notified Dahlia of Petra's intent to examine Warren's eyesight.

c)	Deny the motion, because the examination would not produce any admissible evidence.

d)	Deny the motion, because Warren is not a party to this action.

Question 6 (5 points)

Irene has a painting in her house that was painted by her grandfather. She estimates its value at $5,000. One day her cousins, Julie and Lisa, contact Irene and both claim that they are entitled to the painting because their grandfather promised it to them. Irene does not claim any ownership in the painting, she was merely displaying it because no one else claimed it when her grandfather died recently. Can Irene file an interpleader action in federal court so that the court can determine the rightful owner of the painting?

Question 6 options:

a)	No because a painting cannot serve as a fund or a stake in an interpleader action in federal court.

b)	No because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.

c)	Yes, as long as Irene is diverse from Julie and Lisa.

d)	Yes, as long as Julie and Lisa are diverse.

Question 7 (5 points)

State law requires a summons and complaint to be delivered before an action commences and tolls the relevant statute of limitations. FRCP 3 states that an action is commenced when the complaint is filed in federal court. Paul files his complaint against David in federal court before the statute of limitations expires, but it is served after the statute of limitations has expired. The federal court should

Question 7 options:

a)	Dismiss the case because the statute of limitations has expired.

b)	Dismiss the case under FRCP 3.

c)	Not dismiss the case because FRCP 3 governs since this is a procedural matter.

d)	Not dismiss the case because Paul's claim relates back to the time he filed in federal court.

Question 8 (5 points)

Paula sues her employer for gender based discrimination. She claims that she was denied a promotion because of her gender, and a less qualified male candidate was promoted instead. In discovery, she requests "all correspondence, memoranda, documents, and electronically stored information (ESI)" regarding the male candidate's employment and his promotion. The male candidate has worked for the employer for 3 years. Employer's retention policy requires it to remove ESI from their servers every year, and to move it to a very condensed version of backup storage that is expensive and time consuming to convert back to reasonable files every three years. Which of the following is the employer's best objection?

Question 8 options:

a)	FRCP 34 does not require the production of ESI.

b)	The ESI is inaccessible, and Paula has the burden of proving that production of the information would not be an undue burden.

c)	The ESI is inaccessible, and employer has the burden of proving that production of the information would be an undue burden.

d)	The ESI is privileged information.

Question 9 (5 points)

Patrice is riding her bike down Main Street when she is struck by Diego, who is driving a motorcycle. In the subsequent lawsuit, Diego is represented by counsel and contends that his brakes were negligently designed and did not allow his motorcycle to stop quickly enough, and that is why he failed to stop. Denton Brakes designed and installed the brakes in the motorcycle. Which of the following is true?

Question 9 options:

a)	Denton can intervene as of right because they have a question of fact or law in common with the claims in the lawsuit.

b)	Denton can intervene as of right.

c)	Denton cannot intervene as of right because its interest is the same as Diego's.

d)	Denton cannot intervene as of right because Diego is represented by an attorney so the representation is adequate.

Question 10 (5 points)

Pauline sues Deana for breach of contract. Pauline alleges in her complaint that the contract requires Deana to deliver the goods at issue in the contract by a certain date and time. The contract does not have language about delivery of goods on a certain day or time, and Deana does not recall any other agreement with Pauline about it. In her answer to the complaint, Deana should

Question 10 options:

a)	Ignore the allegation.

b)	Deny the allegation.

c)	Admit the allegation.

d)	Say that she neither admits nor denies because she lacks knowledge or information sufficient to do so.