Volume 23:5 Developments Article Now Available Online

  • | Volume 24 | Volume 24:5 Now Available Online!

  • | News | Sara Almousa Awarded First Place Prize by ASECA for Her Article “Friends with Benefits?”

  • | News | Register Today for the 21st Annual Antitrust Symposium

  • | News | Antitrust Writing Awards for 2016 – Two GMLR Pieces Selected by Awards Committee for Final Competition

  • | Antitrust | 14th Annual Symposium on Antitrust Law, February 9, 2011

Volume 23:5 Developments Article Now Available Online

Through its Developments section, the George Mason Law Review seeks to address the oft-heard critique that legal scholarship is increasingly disconnected from the needs of the bar. Developments operates on a shorter publishing timeline and it posts essays online as soon as they are completed. Although Developments focuses on an online publication to support quick availability, we still offer the prestige of printed publication in a nationally-recognized general interest journal, and the full host of research, editing, and publicity support provided to all of the Law Review’s published authors. Through this process, we hope the George Mason Law Review will position itself at the early stages of scholarly dialogue – among academics, practitioners, and judges – fostering emerging topics before they become the subject of longer, traditional scholarly articles.

Developments reached out to Professor David Crump of the University of Houston School of Law, offering to publish his article entitled “Goodbye, “Reasonably Calculated”; You’re Replaced by “Proportionality”: Deciphering the New Federal Scope of Discovery” in March of 2016. Professor Crump’s article analyzes the amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which has changed the scope of civil discovery from a standard of “reasonably calculated” to one of “proportionality”. Professor Crump diligently explores the new standard for discoverable evidence, outlining the nuances of the amended rule and explaining the manner in which attorneys should approach the amended rule when advocating for or against the discoverability of particular pieces of evidence, as well as how judges should think about the amended rule when making evidentiary determinations. Professor Crump, along with the George Mason Law Review, hopes that this article can condense the learning curve for this reformed standard, leading to more efficient litigation, and a better understanding of the procedural rules that govern federal courts on a day-to-day basis.