Pleading and Cooperation in Private-Law Litigation
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Roy, P. (2025). Pleading and Cooperation in Private-Law Litigation. Comparing Germany and the United States. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-59263-0
Roy, Philippe Matthew. Pleading and Cooperation in Private-Law Litigation: Comparing Germany and the United States. Duncker & Humblot, 2025. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-59263-0
Roy, P (2025): Pleading and Cooperation in Private-Law Litigation: Comparing Germany and the United States, Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-59263-0
Format
Pleading and Cooperation in Private-Law Litigation
Comparing Germany and the United States
Studien zum vergleichenden Privatrecht / Studies in Comparative Private Law, Vol. 26
(2025)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Studium der Germanistik und Politikwissenschaft an der Temple University (Philadelphia) sowie an der Universität Hamburg. Studium der Rechtswissenschaften an der Duquesne University School of Law (mit Auszeichnung). Referendariat am regionalen Gerichtshof in Pittsburgh und am Justiziariat des Gouverneurs des Bundestaates Pennsylvania. Research Fellow an der Brooklyn Law School. Rechtsanwalt in New York und Connecticut mit den Schwerpunkten Zivilprozessrecht, Discovery und Steuerrecht des Bundes. Promotion an der Universität zu Köln.Abstract
The book compares inter alia how civil courts in the United States and Germany balance the burdens on the plaintiff and defendant during the pleading and information-disclosure stages by focusing on pleading requirements, accommodations made to the plaintiff to account for information asymmetry and an examination of testimonial privileges. The initial pleading stage of a civil case addresses important threshold questions before the court proceeds to collecting and evaluating evidence. Access to evidence in the United States through discovery procedures is much broader than in Germany and the pleading standard in federal courts was modified due to criticism of costly and invasive discovery. But pleading that requires more than notice to the defendant imposes a higher burden on the plaintiff. The degree to which civil procedure demands cooperation from civil defendants in the form of document and testimonial disclosure likewise reflects broader value judgments about the appropriate burdens on the parties in litigation. Using the ideal types of legal formalism and legal realism, the author examines the jurisprudential underpinnings for differences between German and U.S. approaches to pleading and information-disclosure. The author concludes that important procedural principles and longstanding practices account for significant differences in pleading and cooperation rules; these rules favor defendants in Germany while generally tending to favor plaintiffs in the United States.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgments | 7 | ||
| Inhaltsverzeichnis | 9 | ||
| Abbreviations | 14 | ||
| Introduction | 19 | ||
| A. Comparing Burdens and Cooperation in Civil Litigation | 22 | ||
| I. Background | 22 | ||
| 1. The Term “Pleading” | 22 | ||
| 2. The Term “Cooperation” | 22 | ||
| 3. The Subject of Comparison | 22 | ||
| II. Reasons for Comparing Pleading: Criticism of Discovery | 23 | ||
| B. Research Questions | 25 | ||
| I. General Theoretical Questions | 25 | ||
| II. Specific Research Questions | 25 | ||
| C. Organization of the Comparison | 25 | ||
| D. Principal Findings | 27 | ||
| I. Balancing the Burden on the Plaintiff with Fairness to the Defendant | 27 | ||
| II. Fundamental Values Favor the Defendant in Germany | 28 | ||
| III. Deduction Versus Abduction When Examining the Pleadings | 28 | ||
| IV. The Relative Formalism of the Procedures; Realist Criticism | 28 | ||
| V. The Gatekeeping Function of Examining the Pleadings | 29 | ||
| VI. Circumstantial Allegations, Information Asymmetry and Inferences | 30 | ||
| VII. The Comparative Sequence of Civil Procedure in Germany and the U.S. | 30 | ||
| VIII. Inconsistent Application of Pleading Standards | 31 | ||
| Part I: The Significance of Civil Private Law Adjudication | 32 | ||
| § 1 Holmes and the Courts | 32 | ||
| § 2 The American Preference for Judges and Litigation | 36 | ||
| A. Early Observations of the United States | 36 | ||
| B. Perspectives on Private Law and Civil Litigation | 38 | ||
| Part II: Attacking Formalism | 42 | ||
| § 3 Legal Realism and Related Theories | 42 | ||
| A. Theories of Legal Reasoning and Adjudication | 42 | ||
| I. Weberian Ideal Types | 43 | ||
| II. Formalism, Conceptualism, Abstraction, and Deduction | 44 | ||
| III. The Principal Arguments of Realists | 45 | ||
| IV. The Role of Jurisprudence | 45 | ||
| B. Critiquing Explanations of the Law's Operation | 46 | ||
| I. The Rise of Realism | 46 | ||
| II. The American Realists and Their Critics | 48 | ||
| III. The Nub of Realist Criticism | 49 | ||
| 1. Law as a Closed (Univocal) System | 50 | ||
| 2. “Ogre Conceptualism” and Abstraction | 50 | ||
| 3. Predictability and Rule/Fact Skepticism | 52 | ||
| IV. Prominent Realist Figures | 53 | ||
| V. Law as a Practical Instrument | 55 | ||
| VI. Later Reflections on Legal Realism | 56 | ||
| C. Preliminary Conclusions | 58 | ||
| § 4 German Theories of Adjudication | 58 | ||
| A. The Law is Free: The Judge as “Subsumtionsautomat” | 60 | ||
| B. Rechtssoziologie | 64 | ||
| C. Value Judgments | 64 | ||
| § 5 German Legal Science and Methods | 65 | ||
| § 6 Legal Dogmatics and Foundational Research | 68 | ||
| § 7 The Influence of Critical Theories of Adjudication | 71 | ||
| A. Discovery, the Federal Rules and Comparative Law | 71 | ||
| I. The 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | 73 | ||
| II. Criticism as a Way to Understand the Operation of Law | 75 | ||
| B. Contemporary Views of Legal Realism | 77 | ||
| Part III: Comparative Method | 80 | ||
| § 8 Why Compare? | 80 | ||
| A. Reasons for Comparing | 80 | ||
| B. Comparative Law as a Substantive Body of Knowledge | 81 | ||
| § 9 What is Comparative Law? | 81 | ||
| A. Questions of Method and Functionalism | 82 | ||
| I. The Functional Method of Zweigert and Kötz | 83 | ||
| II. Functionalism Augmented: Context Matters | 85 | ||
| B. The Functions Compared Below | 85 | ||
| I. Comparative Law as a Method | 86 | ||
| 1. Sources Consulted for Comparing | 86 | ||
| 2. Realism's Influence on the Selection of Sources in Comparative Work | 88 | ||
| II. Comparing Institutions | 89 | ||
| III. Neutrality | 90 | ||
| IV. Sources of Comparison | 91 | ||
| C. Conclusion | 92 | ||
| Part IV: Private-Law Litigation – Values and Attitudes | 93 | ||
| § 10 Comparing the Parties' Burdens | 93 | ||
| A. The Role of Civil Litigation in the Overall Legal Order | 94 | ||
| I. The Place of Private Law Enforcement and Administration in the United States | 95 | ||
| II. Constitutional Aspects of Private Law | 98 | ||
| III. Stare Decisis and the Binding Effect of Precedent in the United States | 101 | ||
| IV. Private Litigation Helps Democracy Function | 101 | ||
| B. Preliminary Conclusions | 102 | ||
| § 11 Civil Pleading Burdens | 107 | ||
| A. The Burdens on the Parties | 109 | ||
| I. Information Asymmetry | 110 | ||
| II. Criticism of Disclosure Obligations and Pleading Standards by Extension | 110 | ||
| B. Systems of Pleading One's Case | 112 | ||
| I. Roman Law Roots | 112 | ||
| II. The Legal Sufficiency of the Complaint | 114 | ||
| C. The German Civil Erkenntnisverfahren | 116 | ||
| I. The Erkenntnisverfahren as a Communicative Process | 116 | ||
| II. Procedural Canons in German Civil Litigation | 117 | ||
| 1. The Principle of Party Presentation | 118 | ||
| a) Distinguishing Party Control From Inquisition | 118 | ||
| b) Private Autonomy and the Role of the Judge and the Parties | 118 | ||
| 2. Principles of Orality and Directness | 121 | ||
| 3. The Right to be Heard (Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör) | 122 | ||
| III. Sufficiency of the Complaint | 123 | ||
| 1. U.S. “Well-Pleaded” and German “Coherently Pleaded” Complaints | 124 | ||
| a) Legal Sufficiency of the Defendant's Answer | 125 | ||
| b) Res Judicata | 127 | ||
| 2. The Concept of Substantiation in German Civil Proceedings | 127 | ||
| 3. The Interplay Between the Parties' Allegations | 130 | ||
| a) Relationstechnik as a Way of Thinking for the German Judge | 130 | ||
| b) Substantiation: Preliminary Conclusion | 133 | ||
| D. Pleading Standards in U.S. Federal Courts | 135 | ||
| I. The Complaint | 135 | ||
| II. The Sequence of Civil Proceedings | 136 | ||
| III. The History Leading to Changes in Pleading Requirements | 137 | ||
| 1. The History of Pleading Arranged by Era | 137 | ||
| a) From Common Law Pleading to Code Pleading | 137 | ||
| b) The 1938 Reform | 138 | ||
| 2. The Impetus for the 1938 Reform | 139 | ||
| a) The Failure of the Conformity Act | 140 | ||
| b) The Underlying Philosophy and Aims of 1938 | 141 | ||
| 3. Rule 8: The Short and Plain Statement of the Claim | 143 | ||
| IV. The Federal Rules and the Plaintiff's Burden as of 2007 | 145 | ||
| 1. The Supreme Court Modifies the Interpretation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 | 145 | ||
| a) Plausibility as the Standard for the Plaintiff's Complaint | 146 | ||
| b) The Policy Reasons for Requiring Plausibility: Discovery Costs | 147 | ||
| c) Does the Plausibility Pleading Standard Apply “Transsubstantively?” | 148 | ||
| d) Abduction Used to Evaluate Competing Inferences in the Plaintiff's Complaint | 149 | ||
| 2. The Standard Applicable to the Defendant's Responses | 150 | ||
| 3. Criticism and Synopsis of “Twiqbal” | 150 | ||
| 4. The Empirical Effects of “Twiqbal” | 153 | ||
| E. Comparative Analysis | 153 | ||
| § 12 Shifting the Parties' Burdens | 157 | ||
| A. Easing the Burden on the Plaintiff | 157 | ||
| I. Comparing Approaches to Pleading in Cases of Information Asymmetry | 158 | ||
| 1. Shifting the Burden of Addressing Allegations | 158 | ||
| 2. Pleading on Information and Belief in U.S. Federal Courts | 161 | ||
| 3. Application of the Secondary Pleading Burden in Germany | 164 | ||
| a) Konkrete Anhaltspunkte and Circumstantial Evidence | 164 | ||
| b) Circumstantial Allegations and Suppositions in Pleading | 168 | ||
| II. Professional Malpractice Pleading Burdens | 169 | ||
| III. Conclusion | 171 | ||
| B. The Privilege not to Cooperate in the Proceedings | 173 | ||
| I. The Privilege not to Testify or Disclose Information | 175 | ||
| 1. Nemo Tenetur Edere Contra Se (“Nemo Tenetur”) | 175 | ||
| 2. Party Cooperation in Civil Cases in Germany | 176 | ||
| a) The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination | 178 | ||
| b) Exceptions to the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination | 179 | ||
| 3. The Obligation to Cooperate in U.S. Federal Courts | 180 | ||
| II. Consequences of Refusing to Cooperate | 182 | ||
| C. Disclosure of Documentation in a Civil Proceeding | 183 | ||
| I. Information Asymmetry and Information Disclosure | 185 | ||
| II. General Discovery Rules | 187 | ||
| III. Compelled Disclosure and Fishing Expeditions (Ausforschung) | 188 | ||
| § 13 Conclusion | 191 | ||
| Bibliography | 198 | ||
| Table of Authorities | 207 | ||
| Index | 211 |