Reference no: EM131149899

Write answers of law questions.

•Paul was hurt in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Dick. Paul brought a federal diversity suit against Dick on a negligence theory. After commencement of the action, Dick's lawyer, Ben, conducted an interview with an eyewitness to the accident, Carl. Ben wrote down those aspects of Carl's account of the accident that seemed most interesting to Ben. Paul's lawyer, after learning of this interview, submitted to Dick a Rule 34 Request for Production of Documents, requesting "any notes taken by Ben of any interviews with Carl." Dick and Ben refused to comply, so Paul made a motion to compel discovery. Should the court grant Paul's motion to compel production of the notes? If so, why?

•Lucy sues Chris for nonpayment of a promissory note of $100,000. Chris's answer contains only this averment: Defendant neither admits nor denies Plaintiff Lucy's claim, and puts Lucy to her proof at trial. Lucy moves for judgment on the pleadings arguing that Chris has admitted liability. Should the motion be granted? Why or why not?

•George brings an action against Som for infringement of a copyright George holds on a book about forensic accounting. The case is tried to a jury. Som moves for judgment as a matter of law at the close of George's evidence. The motion is denied. Som renews the motion after presenting his own evidence. The motion is denied again. The jury is instructed, deliberates, and returns a verdict for George. May Som now move again for judgment as a matter of law? Why or why not?

•Olfactory is a dog who searches for drugs for the Miami/Dade Sherriff's office. His territory is the Miami airport. While checking out luggage, Olfactory barks incessantly to indicate drugs in a particular suitcase. When the suitcase owner, Crack Cocaine, is arrested and tried on drug charges, Olfactory's handler, Andy, testifies for the prosecution that, "Olfactory pointed out the presence of cocaine in the luggage." Is this hearsay? Why or why not?

•One of the required elements of proof to establish a violation of the Federal False Claims Act is that the claim must have been made knowingly. Please discuss in detail what the courts mean by the term "knowingly." What must be shown by a qui tam plaintiff?