Motions

Writing to a Trial Judge

Wayne Schiess offers excellent advice about writing to a trial judge:

Schiess, Wayne, Writing to the Trial Judge – For Motions (2009). Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, Vol. 12, p. 131, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1653991arrow-up-right

CRARC Organization for Advocacy Writing

Judge Gerald Lebovits argues that CRARC is a better, more persuasively organized format for advocacy writing than predictive writing forms, such as IRAC (or CREAC). Read his article closely. You will likely see more CRARC-style writing in advocacy than CREAC (for analysis). So it is important to learn both.

file-pdf
247KB
Lebovits, Gerald, Cracking the Code to Writing Legal Arguments: From IRAC to CRARC to Combinations in Between (July 1, 2010). New York State Bar Association Journal, Vol. 82, No. 6, July/August 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1650923arrow-up-right

circle-info

Below are two examples of motions. Read them closely and compare them to what you know about CREAC, to the advice in Wayne Schiess' article above and the CRARC paradigm in Wayne Lebovits' article above. What do you notice?

What are your questions?

Example #1 of Motion

Context: This motion was filed by attorneys representing Meta (formerly Facebook), another company, and Mark Zuckerberg in a case before the Federal Trade Commission. According to the FTC's website, the FTC "authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between virtual reality (VR) giant Meta and Within Unlimited, the VR studio that markets Supernatural, a leading VR fitness app. [. . . ] Meta sells the most widely used VR headset, operates a widely used VR app store, and already owns many popular VR apps. The agency alleges that Meta’s proposed acquisition of Within would harm competition and dampen innovation in the U.S. markets for fitness and dedicated-fitness VR apps." This motion seeks to exclude the expert testimony of one of the FTC's expert witnesses.

Motion in Limine by Meta, et. al.

Example #2 of Motion

Context:

This is another motion challenging admission of expert testimony, this time by the United States of America in an antitrust suit seeking to block the publisher Penguin Random House from acquiring its rival, Simon & Schuster.

file-pdf
219KB

Last updated