Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Yeazell
Wagoner v. Lewis Gale Medical Center, LLC
Citation:2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91323; 2016 WL 3893135 (W.D. Va. 2016)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Plaintiff was a security guard for Defendant. Plaintiff was fired after approximately two months on the job. Plaintiff claimed that he had dyslexia and as a result had been unable to copy down his work schedule from the schedule posted on the wall. Plaintiff sued Defendant, claiming that his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff sought production of all electronically stored information maintained by Plaintiff‘s former supervisors at Defendant. Plaintiff limited the request to a four-month period, and the following specific search terms when paired with Plaintiff‘s name: dyslexia, dyslexic, read, reading, slow, ADA, disabled, disability, security, schedule, copy, and copying. Defendant objected. Defendant’s e-mail system did not keep emails for more than three days after they were sent. As a result, Defendant would need to hire a third party to retrieve and review the information. Defendant argued that the cost of retrieving and reviewing the requested information—over $45,000—would be more than Plaintiff‘s potential damages in the lawsuit. Plaintiff moved to compel the production.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.