Inspection of documents

Last updated

In pre-trial discovery, parties may have the right to inspect documents that are relevant to the case. [1] In civil cases, the concept of "documents" has been interpreted broadly, and it generally includes any item that contains descriptive information, including electronic records. [2]

Contents

History

Traditionally, in the English common law system, parties who filed lawsuits that requested legal remedies could file a request in the Court of Chancery to inspect of documents in the possession of an opposing party, as long as the documents "tended to prove 'the case' at law of the party filing the [request]." [3] If the documents were not privileged, the court would order the opposing party to provide the requested documents to a clerk in the Court of Chancery so that duplicates could be made. [4] These documents could then later be used as evidence at trial. [5]

Procedures

In many jurisdictions, parties who wish to inspect documents must deliver a formal request for inspection to the parties that possess those documents. [6] These requests usually must describe the documents that would be inspected. [7] Once the request has been delivered to the party in possession of the documents, that party generally must allow for inspection or respond with objections within a specified period of time. [8] Some jurisdictions allow parties in the case to inspect documents that are in the possession of individuals or organizations that are not a party in the case. [9] In general, courts have discretion to compel parties to disclose documents, and courts may also limit a party's right to access or inspect documents. [10] In England, for example, when determining whether a party should be allowed to inspect documents, courts balance the party's need for that evidence against any public interests that would be protected by denying the request for inspection. [11] Courts may also impose sanctions on parties that do not comply with requests for inspection. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

A deposition in the law of the United States, or examination for discovery in the law of Canada, involves the taking of sworn, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that may be reduced to a written transcript for later use in court or for discovery purposes. Depositions are commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada. They are almost always conducted outside court by the lawyers themselves, with no judge present to supervise the examination.

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. In some jurisdictions, it can also be issued by legislative bodies such as county boards of supervisors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery (law)</span> Pretrial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. They are the companion to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rules promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act become part of the FRCP unless, within seven months, the United States Congress acts to veto them. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

In American procedural law, a continuance is the postponement of a hearing, trial, or other scheduled court proceeding at the request of either or both parties in the dispute, or by the judge sua sponte. In response to delays in bringing cases to trial, some states have adopted "fast-track" rules that sharply limit the ability of judges to grant continuances. However, a motion for continuance may be granted when necessitated by unforeseeable events, or for other reasonable cause articulated by the movant, especially when the court deems it necessary and prudent in the "interest of justice."

A subpoena ad testificandum is a court summons to appear and give oral testimony for use at a hearing or trial. The use of a writ for purposes of compelling testimony originated in the ecclesiastical courts of Church during the High Middle Ages, especially in England. The use of the subpoena writ was gradually adopted over time by civil and criminal courts in England and the European continent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Evidence Convention</span> 1970 multilateral treaty

The Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—more commonly referred to as the Hague Evidence Convention—is a multilateral treaty which was drafted under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCPIL). The treaty was negotiated in 1967 and 1968 and signed in The Hague on 18 March 1970. It entered into force in 1972. It allows transmission of letters of request from one signatory state to another signatory state without recourse to consular and diplomatic channels. Inside the US, obtaining evidence under the Evidence Convention can be compared to comity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supplemental jurisdiction</span>

Supplemental jurisdiction, also sometimes known as ancillary jurisdiction or pendent jurisdiction, is the authority of United States federal courts to hear additional claims substantially related to the original claim even though the court would lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the additional claims independently. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is a codification of the Supreme Court's rulings on ancillary jurisdiction and pendent jurisdiction and a superseding of the Court's treatment of pendent party jurisdiction.

In the United States, the Jencks Act requires the prosecutor to produce a verbatim statement or report made by a government witness or prospective government witness, but only after the witness has testified.

A request for production is a legal request for documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible items made in the course of litigation. In civil procedure, during the discovery phase of litigation, a party to a lawsuit may request that another party provide any documents that it has that pertain to the subject matter of the lawsuit. For example, a party in a court case may obtain copies of email messages sent by employees of the opposing party.

A request for admission is a set of statements sent from one litigant to an adversary, for the purpose of having the adversary admit or deny the statements or allegations therein. Requests for admission are part of the discovery process in a civil case. In the U.S. federal court system, they are governed by Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg is a landmark decision in the area of electronic discovery and the burden of costs for such discovery. It was released on May 13, 2003 and was written by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is the first in a series of Zubulake judgements relating to discovery issues, and is also referred to as "Zubulake I". See section "Other Proceedings" for information on other Zubulake decisions.

Civil discovery under United States federal law is wide-ranging and can involve any material which is relevant to the case except information which is privileged, information which is the work product of the opposing party, or certain kinds of expert opinions. Electronic discovery or "e-discovery" is used when the material is stored on electronic media.

The Florida Constitution, in Article V, Section 2(a), vests the power to adopt rules for the "practice and procedure in all courts" in the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in March 1954. The proper abbreviation for the rules is Fla.R.Civ.P. The rules may be amended, or new rules added, from time to time and upon the approval of the Florida Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1790</span> US bill

The Crimes Act of 1790, formally titled An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, defined some of the first federal crimes in the United States and expanded on the criminal procedure provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Crimes Act was a "comprehensive statute defining an impressive variety of federal crimes".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1825</span> U.S. federal law

The Crimes Act of 1825, formally titled An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, was the first piece of omnibus federal criminal legislation since the Crimes Act of 1790. In general, the 1825 act provided more punishment than the 1790 act. The maximum authorized sentence of imprisonment was increased from 7 to 10 years; the maximum fine from $5,000 to $10,000. But, the punishments of stripes and pillory were not provided for.

A civil investigative demand (CID) is a discovery tool used by a number of executive agencies in the United States to obtain information relevant to an investigation. By contrast with other discovery mechanisms, CIDs are typically issued before a complaint has been filed by the government in order to commence a lawsuit against the recipient of the CID. CIDs are considered a type of administrative subpoena.

References

  1. ↑ Inspection of Documents, Black's Law Dictionary (2d ed.); see also Section 724 Revised Statutes of the United States Authorizing Production Before Trial, 56 U. Pa. L. Rev. 400, 400-01 (1908) (discussing history of right to inspect documents in the United States).
  2. ↑ Adrian Keane, The Modern Law of Evidence 250-51 (7th Ed. 2008).
  3. ↑ Section 724 Revised Statutes of the United States Authorizing Production Before Trial, 56 U. Pa. L. Rev. 400, 400 (1908).
  4. ↑ Section 724 Revised Statutes of the United States Authorizing Production Before Trial, 56 U. Pa. L. Rev. 400, 400 (1908) (noting that the Court of Chancery would issue an injunction to stay proceedings in the lawsuit until the documents were provided).
  5. ↑ Section 724 Revised Statutes of the United States Authorizing Production Before Trial, 56 U. Pa. L. Rev. 400, 400 (1908) (noting that this was a "familiar practice").
  6. ↑ See, e.g., Todd L. Archibald & James Cooper Morton, Discovery: Principles in Practice 37 (2004) (Noting that in Canada, "[t]he inspection of documents is conducted in a similar fashion in all jurisdictions); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The Notes of the Advisory Committee that amended this Rule 34 state: "The revision of Rule 34 to have it operate extrajudicially, rather than by court order, is to a large extent a reflection of existing law office practice." Id., Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1970 Amendment.
  7. ↑ See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A); Cal. Code Civ. P. 2031.030(c)(1).
  8. ↑ See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A).
  9. ↑ Kent D. Kehr, Production and Inspection of Documents, Papers, and Tangible Things in Missouri: A Comparison to the Federal Rules, 1955 Wash. U. L. Q. 413, 414-15 (1955); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(c).
  10. ↑ Thomas Scott Murley, Compelling Production of Documents in Violation of Foreign Law: An Examination and Reevaluation of the American Position, 50 Fordham L. Rev. 877, 878-79 (1982); Paul Matthews & Hodge M. Malek, Disclosure 439 (2012).
  11. ↑ Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence 431-32 (10th ed. 2007).
  12. ↑ Thomas Scott Murley, Compelling Production of Documents in Violation of Foreign Law: An Examination and Reevaluation of the American Position, 50 Fordham L. Rev. 877, 879 (1982) (discussing balance between discovery requirements and foreign nondisclosure laws). Some commentators, such as Daniel C. Girard and Todd I. Espinoza, argue that parties are rarely penalized for failing to comply with requests for inspection of documents and that "[s]ervice of evasive discovery responses has become a routine." Daniel C. Girard & Todd I. Espinoza, Limiting Evasive Discovery: A proposal for Three Cost-Saving Amendments to the Federal Rules, 87 Denv. L. Rev. 473, 475 (2010).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.