BRAD BARANOWSKI

Document Type

Article

Disciplines

Civil Procedure

Abstract

A deluge is coming. The Supreme Court’s two most recent personal jurisdiction cases—Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District and Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad—have thrown this area of law into even more flux than before. Because of these cases’ heavy emphasis on the fact-intensive nature of personal jurisdiction law, plaintiffs facing down motions to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) are going to start asking an obvious question: If the Supreme Court thinks facts are so important to personal jurisdiction, then should I try to get access to more facts? The result will be more requests to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and more courts having to figure out how to decide those requests.

Despite the occasional aspersions cast upon it, jurisdictional discovery’s newfound relevance is to be applauded. When used wisely, the practice can be more than just a useful tool for uncovering facts. It can also further hone the law of personal jurisdiction, rendering the doctrine more attune to the interests of all the parties involved. All that is needed is more guidance on how to use that tool.

This Article provides such guidance. Examining hundreds of orders that decided jurisdictional discovery requests, this Article uncovers a coherent set of rationales that courts have tacitly relied upon when rendering these decisions. These rationales provide a principled and practical framework for deciding jurisdictional discovery requests, one that courts can use both to bring additional coherence to the practice and to field what is likely to be the flood of discovery requests to come.

Download

Share

COinS