IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-667932.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discovery and Disclosure with Asymmetric Information and Endogenous Expenditure at Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Farmer
  • Paul Pecorino

Abstract

We develop a model with asymmetric information, in which the uninformed party makes the offer. When the parties proceed to trial, their endogenous expenditures partially determine the outcome. The endogenous spending at trial can either strengthen or weaken the bargaining position of the uninformed party with the player types who settle. When the bargaining position is strengthened, some standard results on information transmission prior to trial may be overturned. The recipient of the offer with a weak case may make a costly voluntary disclosure. In addition, the party making the offer may refuse costless discovery. Both of these results contrast with the standard results in the literature derived from models in which spending at trial is treated as exogenous.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Farmer & Paul Pecorino, 2013. "Discovery and Disclosure with Asymmetric Information and Endogenous Expenditure at Trial," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 223-247.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/667932
    DOI: 10.1086/667932
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667932
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667932
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/667932?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tullock, Gordon, 1975. "On the Efficient Organization of Trials," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 745-762.
    2. Warneryd, Karl, 2003. "Information in conflicts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 121-136, May.
    3. Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "Managerial Judges: An Economic Analysis of the Judicial Management of Legal Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 305-323, Summer.
    4. Konrad, Kai A., 2009. "Strategy and Dynamics in Contests," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199549603.
    5. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    6. Slantchev, Branislav L., 2010. "Feigning Weakness," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(3), pages 357-388, July.
    7. Mark Fey, 2008. "Rent-seeking contests with incomplete information," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 225-236, June.
    8. Steven Shavell, 1989. "Sharing of Information Prior to Settlement or Litigation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(2), pages 183-195, Summer.
    9. Daughety, Adnrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1993. "Endogenous Sequencing in Models of Settlement and Litigation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 314-348, October.
    10. Poitras, Marc & Frasca, Ralph, 2011. "A unified model of settlement and trial expenditures: The PriestâKlein model extended," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 188-195, September.
    11. Choné, Philippe & Linnemer, Laurent, 2010. "Optimal litigation strategies with observable case preparation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 271-288, November.
    12. Hay, Bruce L, 1994. "Civil Discovery: Its Effects and Optimal Scope," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 481-515, January.
    13. Hurley, Terrance M. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Effort levels in a Cournot Nash contest with asymmetric information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 195-210, June.
    14. Watts, Alison, 1994. "Bargaining through an Expert Attorney," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 168-186, April.
    15. Gong, Jiong & McAfee, R Preston, 2000. "Pretrial Negotiation, Litigation, and Procedural Rules," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(2), pages 218-238, April.
    16. Gordon Tullock, 2008. "On the efficient organization of trials," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Kai A. Konrad & Arye L. Hillman (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 2, pages 361-378, Springer.
    17. Plott, Charles R, 1987. "Legal Fees: A Comparison of the American and English Rules," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 185-192, Fall.
    18. Katz, Avery, 1988. "Judicial decisionmaking and litigation expenditure," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 127-143, December.
    19. Barry Nalebuff, 1987. "Credible Pretrial Negotiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 198-210, Summer.
    20. McAdams, David, 2012. "Strategic ignorance in a second-price auction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 83-85.
    21. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1994. "An Economic Model of Legal Discovery," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 435-463, January.
    22. Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 1999. "Legal Expenditure as a Rent-Seeking Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 271-288, September.
    23. Warren F. Schwartz & Abraham L. Wickelgren, 2009. "Credible discovery, settlement, and negative expected value suits," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 636-657, December.
    24. Curtis R. Taylor & Huseyin Yildirim, 2011. "Subjective Performance and the Value of Blind Evaluation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 762-794.
    25. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    26. Mnookin, Robert & Wilson, Robert, 1998. "A Model of Efficient Discovery," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 219-250, November.
    27. Mark Gradstein, 1995. "Intensity Of Competition, Entry And Entry Deterrence In Rent Seeking Contests," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 79-91, March.
    28. Nitzan, Shmuel, 1994. "Modelling rent-seeking contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 41-60, May.
    29. Jennifer F. Reinganum & Louise L. Wilde, 1986. "Settlement, Litigation, and the Allocation of Litigation Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 557-566, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. At Christian & Friehe Tim & Gabuthy Yannick, 2019. "On Lawyer Compensation When Appeals Are Possible," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 1-11, April.
    2. Farmer Amy & Pecorino Paul, 2016. "Litigation with a Variable Cost of Trial," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 203-226, July.
    3. Andrew F. Daughety & Reinganum F. Reinganum, 2014. "Settlement and Trial: Selected Analyses of the Bargaining Environment," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 14-00005, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    4. Shaun Larcom & Mare Sarr, 2018. "On the Perils of Commitment to Punishment when Criminals Are Strategic," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(2), pages 391-418.
    5. Guerra Alice & Luppi Barbara & Parisi Francesco, 2019. "Standards of Proof and Civil Litigation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Bryan C. McCannon & Joylynn Pruitt, 2018. "Taking on the boss: Informative contests in prosecutor elections," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(5), pages 657-671, October.
    7. repec:elg:eechap:15325_17 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ayouni, Mehdi & Friehe, Tim & Gabuthy, Yannick, 2023. "Asking for information prior to settlement or trial when misrepresentation of evidence is possible," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 26-35.
    9. M. Vannini & B. Mccannon & R. Marselli & C. Detotto, 2022. "Experts and Arbitration Outcomes: Insights from Public Procurement Contract Disputes," Working Paper CRENoS 202204, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    10. Morin Chassé, Rémi, 2019. "Strategic behavior in environmental contests with asymmetric ability and reimbursement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 115-126.
    11. Ian A. MacKenzie, 2014. "Precaution with endogenous litigation choices," Discussion Papers Series 535, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    12. Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 2020. "Disclosure and Discovery with fairness," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    13. McLeod, Alex, 2021. "Discovery, disclosure, and confidence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    14. Jonah B. Gelbach, 2016. "Can Simple Mechanism Design Results be Used to Implement the Proportionality Standard in Discovery?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(1), pages 200-221, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew F. Daughety & Reinganum F. Reinganum, 2014. "Settlement and Trial: Selected Analyses of the Bargaining Environment," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 14-00005, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    2. Amy Farmer & Paul Pecorino, 2005. "Civil Litigation with Mandatory Discovery and Voluntary Transmission of Private Information," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 137-159, January.
    3. Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 2020. "Disclosure and Discovery with fairness," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Warren F. Schwartz & Abraham L. Wickelgren, 2009. "Credible discovery, settlement, and negative expected value suits," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 636-657, December.
    5. Choné, Philippe & Linnemer, Laurent, 2010. "Optimal litigation strategies with observable case preparation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 271-288, November.
    6. Farmer Amy & Pecorino Paul, 2016. "Litigation with a Variable Cost of Trial," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 203-226, July.
    7. Baumann, Florian & Friehe, Tim, 2014. "On discovery, restricting lawyers, and the settlement rate," DICE Discussion Papers 155, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    8. Chopard, Bertrand & Cortade, Thomas & Langlais, Eric, 2010. "Trial and settlement negotiations between asymmetrically skilled parties," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 18-27, March.
    9. Ayouni, Mehdi & Friehe, Tim & Gabuthy, Yannick, 2023. "Asking for information prior to settlement or trial when misrepresentation of evidence is possible," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 26-35.
    10. Osborne, Evan, 1999. "Who should be worried about asymmetric information in litigation?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 399-409, September.
    11. Steven Shavell, 2003. "Economic Analysis of Litigation and the Legal Process," NBER Working Papers 9697, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1995. "Keeping Society in the Dark: On the Admissibility of Pretrial Negotiations as Evidence in Court," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 203-221, Summer.
    13. Matthias Kräkel, 2010. "Double-Sided Moral Hazard, Efficiency Wages, and Litigation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 337-364.
    14. Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 2017. "Litigation with judgment proof defendants," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Poitras, Marc & Frasca, Ralph, 2011. "A unified model of settlement and trial expenditures: The PriestâKlein model extended," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 188-195, September.
    16. Ben Chen & José A. Rodrigues-Neto, 2023. "The interaction of emotions and cost-shifting rules in civil litigation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(3), pages 841-885, April.
    17. Zhou, J., 2010. "Access to justice : An economic approach," Other publications TiSEM 9d70f451-35c4-4878-92bf-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Deffains, 2007. "Uncertainty of Law and the Legal Process," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 627-656, December.
    19. Sami Dakhlia & Paul Pecorino, 2006. "Rent-seeking with scarce talent: A model of preemptive hiring," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 475-486, December.
    20. Hyde, Charles E. & Williams, Philip L., 2002. "Necessary costs and expenditure incentives under the English rule," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-152, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/667932. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.