Discussion

[IC Anonymous]

How much is allowable in discovery?

What are the things that an adversary can ask for in discovery?Materials or information related to the claims and defenses, right?

[hannah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IC Anonymous How much is allowable in discovery? What are the things that an adversary can ask for in discovery?Materials or information related to the claims and defenses, right?

It all depends on your state discovery statutes. If federal, it depends on the federal rules. What state were you wondering about or were you wanting the FCRP's?

[IC Anonymous]

this is FRCP

[roybean]

Did something happen? I mean did they ask for something not related to the case?

[drivel]

probably the OP wants to ask for something not related to the case.

[Enigma]

You can basically ask for anything, however the opposition or you for that matter can raise objections.

[roybean]

Enigma I found an article (will have to find it again) where an attorney sued another lawyer for discovery abuse.

I think it was something about a child dying and when the mother was deposed the attorney was heartless asking things like "Do you think your husband could have harmed the child?" and the child died in the husband's (father's) arms.

I read so much I think that's what the article was about....attorney for the parents asked her to stop with her line questioning and she said, "I'm sorry, but I have to ask."

It was a malpractice suit in which the hospital was negligent and somehow the other lawyer was trying to blame someone else.

There's a lot of controversy because the courts are suppose to limit discovery to the claims and defenses.

[roybean]

Wait....I found it. I had it backwards...it was the father being questioned about the mother's handling of the child.
Defense lawyer asking "inhumane" deposition questions : South Carolina Nursing Home Blog

[roybean]

I wish I could find the case where he sued her because you know I have an issue with this and I've read many articles and books. A deposition does not give them permission to ask questions about any and everything not pertaining to the case.

Let me see if I can find out if he really sued because it is harassment and just a way of trying shift blame or alleviate their damages.

[roybean]

Here's another one, but this time it is the other side:
First, the attorney attempted to obstruct his adversary’s ability to question the witness and peppered his attacks with obscenities and personal insults. When the witness was asked a question, the examining attorney was told that the attorney was going to “shut it down if [he] didn’t go on to [the] next question.” The attorney at issue then proceeded to call the examining attorney an “asshole” and warned: “You can ask some questions but get off of that. I’m tired of you. You could gag a maggot off a meat wagon.”24 After the attorneys went back and forth, the attorney told his opponent to “shut up,” and that the deposition was going to end in one hour, “period.”25 He attacked his adversary’s skills, commenting that he had “no concept” of what he was doing. He eventually admonished the examining attorney not to question the witness further: “Don’t even talk with this witness.”26 Such abusive behavior was not new for this attorney, who once shoved another attorney into the wall outside a courtroom.27

Under Attack: Professionalism in the Practice of Law

[Enigma]

Rule 26(a)(4)(b)(1)

Scope in General.

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).

[roybean]

Yes, I know, but the Supreme Court changes in 2000 asks the lower to courts to use their discretion and limit questioning and discovery to the claims and issues at hand because it is getting out of hand. Or should I say it has already gotten out of hand.

[Enigma]

Discovery Handbook

[roybean]

That looks like a good read; I'll get around to it.

[Enigma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean Yes, I know, but the Supreme Court changes in 2000 asks the lower to courts to use their discretion and limit questioning and discovery to the claims and issues at hand because it is getting out of hand. Or should I say it has already gotten out of hand.

The rules are from 2006, the last update.

Discovery and depositions are two different animals. Even though depos are part of the discovery process.

In the child death example, I agree with that the manner in which the parents were questioned was totally out of line. But, it is perfectly acceptable to pursue such a line of questioning provided it is done in a tactful and respectful manner.

[Enigma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean That looks like a good read; I'll get around to it.

It mainly pertains to Fl but there is some good federal guidelines too.

[roybean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma The rules are from 2006, the last update. Discovery and depositions are two different animals. Even though depos are part of the discovery process. In the child death example, I agree with that the manner in which the parents were questioned was totally out of line. But, it is perfectly acceptable to pursue such a line of questioning provided it is done in a tactful and respectful manner.

Just like I have said abut my teachers; some are meant to teach and others "What the hell are they doing here?" because they sure don't wanna be

It is the same with some lawyers; some think that because they try to behave emotionless s/he is being tactful and they don't have a clue.

I agree too; there was a way to ask those questions without traumatizing the parents.

[roybean]

I think the proper thing to do was to ask about the home and who is the primary caregiver? I would have asked "Who spoils the baby the most?" "Who spends the most time with the baby?" Because the goals should have been to find out how each parent is with the child; if one parent is attentive, or awkward with the child....not straight out "Do you think she killed the kid?" which is basically what the attorney asked.

[Enigma]

Here is good read on what can be considered burdensome.

[roybean]

Ok, I will get to it. thx