1143:"privilege log": federal Rule 26(b)(5) was not adopted by the D.C. Superior Court. Where above is stated "litigants may only resort to the D.C. Superior Court" upon correction is found according to the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure Section 73(b)Judicial Review and Appeal which states: "Judicial review of a final order or judgment entered upon direction of a hearing commissioner is available on motion of a party to the Superior Court judge designated by the Chief Judge to conduct such reviews...After that review has been completed, appeal may be taken to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals." This rule basically implies that in a civil action, if a hearing commissioner is authorized by all parties to conduct the proceedings instead of a judge, upon a request for a review or appeal, the motion must first be reviewed by a Superior Court judge to the same standard as a motion for appeal on a Superior Court Judge to the Court of Appeals, but the right to appeal to the higher courts still remains.
716:
engrossed the narrative on parchment (in plain
English, copied the text from paper to parchment in clearly legible handwriting). Either way, the resulting document (paper in or near London, parchment outside London) was filed under seal with the court, and was not revealed or "published" (in the terminology of the time) to parties or counsel until shortly before the trial in which it was to be used. An 1899 treatise on evidence law explained the rationale for this method of examining a witness in equity: it allowed a witness "ample time" for "calm recollection" as they answered questions read by a neutral person and an opportunity to correct the record at the end before it was submitted to the court as evidence. In contrast, at trial in a common law court, the witness might be subject to "severe and rapid
667:: written questions which the defendant was required to truthfully respond to under oath in his answer to the bill, based on information within his own personal knowledge as well as documents in his possession. But back then, interrogatories could only elicit admissible evidence (not the broader modern standard of "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence") and could only request evidence in support of the plaintiff's case, not either side's case (that is, they could not ask for evidence which the defendant intended to use in support of his defenses and was otherwise entirely irrelevant to the plaintiff's case). Even worse, this was purely a one-way procedure, because interrogatories could only be pleaded as part of a bill (a pleading
1202:. For example, one can make information requests that are potentially expensive and time-consuming for the other side to fulfill, respond to a discovery request with thousands of documents of questionable relevance to the case, file requests for protective orders to prevent the deposition of key witnesses, and in other ways increase the difficulty and cost of discovery. In 1983, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules attached a Committee Note to Rule 26 of the FRCP that cautioned federal courts to "prevent use of discovery to wage a war of attrition or as a device to coerce a party, whether financially weak or affluent", then had to repeat and stress that exact same text in the 2015 Committee Note.
817:
court-appointed examiners, their role had been reduced to the preparation of summary narratives to be relied upon as evidence by the court. In 1892, Rule 67 was again amended to require the preparation of an exact transcript. Subsequent amendments in 1893 and 1912 eliminated the deposition's traditional role as an equitable factfinding device by first allowing and then requiring oral testimony in open court in trials of federal suits in equity, thereby reducing the deposition to its modern role in
American civil procedure as a discovery and evidence preservation device.
1185:
continuing duty: the responding party only needs to respond with the facts as known on the date of the response, and is under no obligation to update its responses as new facts become known. This causes many parties to reserve one or two interrogatories until the closing days of discovery, when they ask if any of the previous responses to discovery have changed, and then ask what the changes are. Historically, California depositions were not limited in length until the
Legislature enacted reforms in 2012. Another key difference is that most objections
1340:
comply with
Article 6, during the course of an investigation, the investigator or prosecutor may decide that it is necessary to request and/or process personal or private information from a complainant or witness to pursue a reasonable line of inquiry; this includes, but is not limited to, digital material. 13. When seeking to obtain and review such material, investigators and prosecutors should be aware that these lines of inquiry may engage that individual's Article 8 rights and those rights in respect of other parties within that material.
753:; the witnesses would thereby be forced to testify from memory alone, and the parties could not use the facts disclosed in testimony to guide their discovery or litigation strategy. Consistent with these inquisitorial views, there were also prohibitions on repeat testimony and on additional testimony after publication. Rather, the witnesses would testify independently of each other before publication, then at the moment of publication, all would be revealed, and the parties would make their arguments to the Chancellor on that cold record.
1172:
papers, documents, photographs or tangible objects with the prosecutor intends to use at trial, (v) any prior criminal convictions of the defendant or any witness. In practice, this means that criminal defendants in Alaska are able to review any police report, lab report, audio/video recordings, witness statements, and more, before they proceed to trial. Most defendants will also have this material far enough in advance to have reviewed it before making a decision about any possible plea deal.
809:
pleadings. The New York reforms went much farther, by directly merging common law and equity procedure (which would also happen in
England in the early 1870s), and by expressly authorizing pretrial oral examinations of both opposing parties and third-party witnesses, the basis of the modern deposition. (Up to that point, discovery from able-bodied opposing parties was still limited to interrogatories.) In fact, the New York code of civil procedure (brought about by
1305:(CPIA). This requires the Crown to provide all information which might be reasonably capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence case. This standard is an ongoing obligation throughout the lifespan of a criminal investigation and trial. While the majority of disclosure will likely take place at the outset of a trial - usually at or before the Pre-trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), multiple disclosures may occur throughout a case as required.
805:
January 1839 reveals that the examiner had already lost control of the examination. The examiner was reduced to summarizing a flurry of objections and arguments exchanged between the lawyers after one of them allegedly tried to take the witness aside to get an informal preview of the witness's answers before getting them on the record. All this would have been impossible under the old deposition procedure where counsel was not present.
1190:
question" may be included in an interrogatory. However, "form interrogatories" which have been approved by the state
Judicial Council do not count toward this limit. In addition, no "preface or instruction" may be included in the interrogatories unless it has been approved by the Judicial Council; in practice, this means that the only instructions permissible with interrogatories are the ones provided with the form interrogatories.
1168:, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The discovery process is intended to provide adequate information for informed pleas, to expedite trial, minimize surprise, afford an opportunity for effective cross-examination, and meet the requirements of due process. To the extent possible, discovery prior to trial should be as full and free as possible, consistent with protection of persons, effective law enforcement, and the adversarial system.
636:: among various requirements, a plaintiff's bill in equity was required to plead "positions". These were statements of evidence that the plaintiff assumed to exist in support of his pleading and which he believed lay within the knowledge of the defendant. They strongly resembled modern requests for admissions, in that the defendant was required to plead only whether they were true or false. The practice of pleading
789:
difficult for masters to summarize in writing. Therefore, Kent allowed New York masters to actively engage in oral examination of witnesses (in the sense of formulating questions in real time and narrowing their scope based on the witnesses' answers), and he also allowed parties and counsel to be present when such examinations were conducted. Kent's innovations spread into
American federal practice in 1842 when the
566:
1447:
and rules on privileges set out in Part 31 of CPR and PD 31B. Once a party properly conducts general discovery in accordance with discovery rules and procedures, documents are deemed discoverable, i.e. documents are available for inspection. Inspectionability refers to procedural and legal elements: the former concerns clerical production of documents; the latter concerns the relevance test (
813:) went so far as to abolish written interrogatories. A major flaw, though, of the New York code of civil procedure was that it only allowed parties to seek discovery on issues on which they would have the burden of proof at trial. This caused lawyers for defendants to plead fictional defenses in answers, because they still could not directly pursue discovery into the plaintiff's claims.
1499:
844:) created for the first time a comprehensive discovery system in U.S. federal courts. The FRCP authorized broad discovery into "any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter in the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of" either party. Due to the influence of
756:
One key difference, however, was that in ecclesiastical courts, the judge himself took the depositions of the witnesses (by reading to them the interrogatories submitted by the parties), and thus personally developed the factual record which the parties would then argue over at trial. To modern eyes,
1387:
Third party material is a specific class of material identified by the fact that it originates outside the activity of the criminal inquiry or prosecution. Typically, third party material includes mobile device data; CCTV; and medical, therapeutic or local authority records. This material may reveal
1171:
A prosecuting attorney is required to disclose to the accused the following material, and to make it available for inspection and copying: (i) names and addresses of witnesses, (ii) written or recorded statements of the accused, (iii) written or recorded statements of a co-defendant, (iv) any books,
1129:
rule, which requires that any deal with a witness that might call the witness's credibility into question must be disclosed in court. As a consequence, any plea bargain or deal made by the prosecutor with a witness in exchange for testimony should be disclosed to the defense as part of the discovery
995:
If a defendant in a criminal case requests discovery from the prosecution, the prosecutor may request reciprocal discovery. The prosecutor's right to discovery is deemed reciprocal as it arises from the defendant's request for discovery. The prosecutor's ability to obtain discovery is limited by the
900:
New technology is able to address problems created by the first approach by running an application entirely in memory on each custodian machine and only pushing responsive data across the network. This process has been patented and embodied in a tool that has been the subject of a conference paper.
856:
After
American discovery became the subject of harsh criticism for many decades (as separately summarized below), the United States retreated somewhat from broad discovery in the federal courts by expressly incorporating a proportionality requirement into the scope of discovery in the version of the
727:
out-of-court pretrial examinations under the authority of courts of equity came to be called a "deposition". It continued to be used as an evidence preservation device in aid of actions at law, but it also became the standard method for developing the factual record to be used in courts of equity as
1446:
The usual forms of discovery are general discovery and specific discovery since parties in issue are unlikely to reach agreements as to what ought to be disclosed. This reflects in the current discovery rules which put emphasis on compliance of time limit, rules on service, proper list of documents
1403:
Recent guidance and legal judgments, including the Court of Appeal case of R v Bater-James & Anor EWCA Crim 790 and the mobile phone extraction report by the
Information Commissioner's Office have set out detailed principles for accessing third party material - especially in the case of mobile
1395:
Access to third party material, especially in rape and serious sexual assault cases (RASSO), has come under heavy criticism from groups representing victims of these crimes. They argue that requests for material from victims has become excessive and that 'requests often go far beyond simply seeking
1347:
Criminal disclosure interacts closely with the obligations placed on investigators to undertake all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether they point towards or away from the suspect. This requirement is created by para. 3.5 CPIA Code of
Practice. While investigating, officers are therefore likely to
808:
Major reforms enacted in New York in the late 1840s and in England in the early 1850s laid the foundation for the rise of modern discovery by imposing a clear separation between pleadings and discovery as distinct phases of procedural law. Discovery devices could now be invoked independently of the
674:
Discovery did not exist at common law, but its availability in equity attracted litigants in actions at law (legal proceedings in the common law courts). They began to file bills in equity to obtain discovery in aid of actions at law. This led to another innovation in the mid-15th century: the bill
1142:
The District of Columbia follows the federal rules, with a few exceptions. Some deadlines are different, and litigants may only resort to the D.C. Superior Court. Forty interrogatories, including parts and sub-parts, may be propounded by one party on any other party. There is no requirement for a
945:
of the opposing party. Other types of information may be protected, depending on the type of case and the status of the party. For instance, juvenile criminal records are generally not discoverable, peer review findings by hospitals in medical negligence cases are generally not discoverable and,
824:
enacted the Evidence Act 1851 and the Common Law Procedure Act 1854. The right to discovery in the common law courts was "exercised somewhat more narrowly" than in chancery, but the point was that a litigant at common law no longer needed to file a bill of discovery in chancery just to obtain any
1217:
supporters make a similar accusation, that discovery is used by plaintiffs' lawyers to impose costs on defendants in order to force settlements in unmeritorious cases to avoid the cost of discovery. However, others argue that discovery abuse is an exaggerated concept, that discovery works well in
1189:
be made in detail on the record at deposition or they are permanently waived. A party may only propound thirty-five written special interrogatories on any other single party unless the propounding party submits a "declaration of necessity". No "subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive
848:
law professor Edson R. Sunderland, an enthusiastic proponent of broad discovery, the FRCP expressly authorized the complete family of discovery methods familiar to American litigators today. What made the FRCP so revolutionary was that although many state governments had regularly allowed one or
804:
However, with the parties and counsel now present to help guide the course of the master's oral examination of the witness, it was inevitable that counsel would insist on taking over the examination itself, and their presence meant the proceedings were no longer secret. A New York deposition from
1391:
Access to third party material is governed by the Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure. These require that third party material must be relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry in order to be obtained. As such, third party material should never be accessed speculatively. It must always be
1339:
12. Investigators and prosecutors need to be aware of the delicate questions which arise when both the right to a fair trial and the privacy of complainants and witnesses are engaged. Fulfilling disclosure obligations is part of ensuring a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 of the ECHR. To
1184:
California written discovery generally consists of four methods: demands for inspection (the formal statutory name for requests for production of documents), form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admissions. The duty to respond to California discovery requests is not a
715:
reveal striking similarities which imply the witnesses probably gave "yes" and "no" answers to the same set of interrogatories. In London, the witness usually signed or marked the narrative at its end (and occasionally would sign at the bottom of each page), while outside of London, the clerk
991:
or potentially exculpatory, without any request by the defense. Further discovery is available if initiated by the defendant. For example, a discovery demand might be for production of the names of witnesses, witness statements, information about evidence, a request for opportunity to inspect
788:
during the early 19th century. He was trying to respond to the obvious defect of traditional depositions: since parties could not adjust their questions on the fly, they had to propound broadly drawn interrogatories, and in turn elicited "long and complicated accounts" of the facts that were
1350:
In order to aid the investigation, narrow lines of inquiry and assist with efficient and effective disclosure the defence should also provide a defence case statement. This statement outlines the position taken by the suspect and will allow prosecutors to identify what is 'at issue' in the
816:
In 1861, Rule 67 of the Federal Equity Rules was amended to make deposition by oral examination the regular method of taking evidence in equity in federal courts; taking witness testimony by written interrogatories was now the exception. Although depositions were still taken in front of
1052:
was served to the defendants, to plan for the discovery process. The parties should attempt to agree on the proposed discovery schedule, and submit a proposed Discovery Plan to the court within 14 days after the conference. After that, the main discovery process begins which includes:
904:
In relation to the second approach, despite self-collection being a hot topic in eDiscovery, concerns are being addressed by limiting the involvement of the custodian to simply plugging in a device and running an application to create an encrypted container of responsive documents.
1180:
In California state courts, discovery is governed by the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 (Title 4 (Sections 2016-2036) of the Code of Civil Procedure), as subsequently amended. A significant number of appellate court decisions have interpreted and construed the provisions of the Act.
1458:, in order to support a more co-operative approach to disclosure, the scope of the documents to be disclosed being "not wider than is reasonable and proportionate ... in order fairly to resolve issues". On 5 October 2022 these rules (with some minor changes) became permanent.
741:(i.e., driven by the parties). It is generally believed that this came about because the early Chancellors and the masters who assisted them were clerics with training in Roman and canon law, and therefore had some knowledge of the inquisitorial system as it functioned in
707:, rather than as responses given in the first person to discrete questions. In other words, the actual sequence of questions and answers was not transcribed verbatim like a modern deposition. For example, the surviving narratives of multiple witnesses to a 16 May 1643
1435:(CPR), and its linked Practice Direction (PD) 31B on disclosure of electronic documents, adopted in October 2010. The purpose of the Practice Direction is "to encourage and assist the parties to reach agreement in relation to the disclosure of Electronic Documents in a
1319:(a) disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused, or
1396:
contemporaneous records, or records known to contain evidence that relates to the incident: indeed, often records are sought which span many years, and in circumstances where the victim/survivor is not aware of any relevant material existing within the records.'
927:, civil discovery is wide-ranging and may seek disclosure of information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a much broader standard than relevance, because it contemplates the exploration of evidence which
691:. Outside of London, the parties' attorneys were supposed to jointly stipulate to a group of lay commissioners (typically four, though only two were needed for a quorum) who could not be interested persons (i.e., parties or their lawyers) and were usually
702:
The person(s) examining the witness would appoint a clerk, whom under their supervision would write down the witness's oral answers under oath in summary form on paper, as if they had been spontaneously delivered as a single continuous third-person
1399:
The invasive nature of improper or excessive access to third party material has been accepted by the government in the end-to-end rape review, which sets out actions to be taken to reform the approach of the CPS and police to third party material.
1117:, 353 U.S. 657 (1957), and the Jencks Act, which requires federal prosecutors to produce any witness statement in the government's possession that relates to the subject of the witness' testimony, if that witness will testify against the defendant.
877:(1) where physical access to the organisations network is possible - agents are installed on each custodian machine which push large amounts of data for indexing across the network to one or more servers that have to be attached to the network or
880:(2) for instances where it is impossible or impractical to attend the physical location of the custodian system - storage devices are attached to custodian machines (or company servers) and then each collection instance is manually deployed.
1209:
that favors the party that is in control of the information needed by the other party. Instead of encouraging discovery, the rules are described as encouraging lawyers to find new ways to manipulate and distort or conceal information.
1249:
As implemented in 1938, the modern American discovery scheme granted powers directly to private parties and their counsel which are "functionally equivalent" to the power to issue self-executing administrative subpoenas. This is why
1151:
Many states have adopted discovery procedures based on the federal system; some closely adhere to the federal model, others not so closely. Some states take an entirely different approach to discovery. Many states have adopted the
732:
in lieu of live testimony in open court, was a kind of factfinding process in its own right. As implied by the secret nature of the proceedings and the absence of parties and counsel, equity's factfinding process was fundamentally
678:
In this type of proceeding, the parties merely pleaded written interrogatories which were read out loud to the witness in a closed proceeding without parties or counsel present. The witness's attendance was secured by service of a
961:
In practice, most civil cases in the United States are settled after discovery. After discovery, both sides often are in agreement about the relative strength and weaknesses of each side's case and this often results in either a
776:
was referring in an 1802 law providing that "in all suits in equity, it shall be in the discretion of the court, upon the request of either party, to order the testimony of the witnesses therein to be taken by depositions."
1388:
important information to the inquiry which may become evidence in the case. Where information from third party sources does not form part of the evidence, it may still need to be disclosed if it meets the disclosure test.
946:
depending on the case, other types of evidence may be non-discoverable for reasons of privacy, difficulty or expense in complying and for other reasons. (Criminal discovery rules may differ from those discussed here.)
3207:
757:
the most bizarre aspect of Chancery's adoption of such a labor-intensive quasi-inquisitorial procedure was that for most of its history, Chancery was a one-judge court. The Crown always attempted to operate the
833:. Although discovery by then had been available at common law for almost two decades, the new court generally looked to the older and broader form of discovery in chancery as the basis of its discovery rules.
3068:
1378:(d) indicating any point of law (including any point as to the admissibility of evidence or an abuse of process) which he wishes to take, and any authority on which he intends to rely for that purpose.
1105:, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which requires a prosecuting attorney to disclose to a defendant any material which is potentially exculpatory or that would impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.
1093:
discovery if responses are not received within the FRCP time limit. Parties can file a motion for a protective order if the discovery requests become unduly burdensome or for purpose of harassment.
871:
Electronic discovery, also known as ediscovery, involves the discovery of electronic data and records. It is important that data obtained through ediscovery be reliable, and therefore admissible.
3146:
552:
2748:
675:
to perpetuate testimony of a potential witness. This was for witnesses whose advanced age or poor health implied they would not survive to testify at the trial of an action at law.
728:
derived from the knowledge of third-party witnesses (not merely those who were old or dying). The process of summarizing testimony in narrative form, to be relied upon by the
3204:
2162:
1440:
1332:
Detailed guidance on the manner in which disclosure is undertaken is offered by the Code of Practice for the CPIA 1996 and the Attorney General's Disclosure Guidelines.
997:
671:
a suit in equity). A defendant who needed to obtain evidence in support of his defenses had to file a cross-bill against the plaintiff to plead his own interrogatories.
1164:
In Alaska criminal courts, discovery is governed by Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 (Cr.R.16). The scope of discovery is broad and includes much more than is required by
853:
of them, as Sunderland frankly admitted to the Advisory Committee that drafted the FRCP. As a result, the United States has the broadest discovery system in the world.
3113:
1153:
394:
3134:
1294:. Every accused person has a right to a fair trial. This right is a fundamental part of the legal system in England and Wales and is guaranteed by Article 6 of the
1014:
1009:
914:
1302:
545:
1096:
In federal criminal prosecutions, discovery rights originate from a number of important Supreme Court decisions and statutes, the most important of which are,
1258:
because from their perspective, the result amounts to "a private inquisition." Civil law countries see the underlying objectives of discovery as properly
1198:
The use of discovery has been criticized as favoring the wealthier side in a lawsuit, by enabling parties to drain each other's financial resources in a
2943:
Mullenix, Linda S. (July 1994). "Discovery in Disarray: The Pervasive Myth of Pervasive Discovery Abuse and the Consequences for Unfounded Rulemaking".
1021:
countries. In the United States, discovery is mostly performed by the litigating parties themselves, with relatively minimal judicial oversight. The
1290:, provides the defence with relevant information discovered during the course of a criminal investigation. The disclosure process helps protect the
538:
720:" without sufficient time for reflection or deliberation, thereby causing them to "misrepresent facts, from infirmity of recollection or mistake".
887:
In a typical collection process large volumes of data are transmitted across the network for indexing and this impacts normal business operations
780:
The next major development (which would remain a unique feature of American and Canadian discovery) occurred under the supervision of Chancellor
772:, including the tradition of having courts of equity appoint masters to take depositions. It is this quasi-inquisitorial procedure to which the
1509:
1205:
It has been argued that although the goal of discovery is to level the playing field between the parties, the discovery rules instead create a
798:
620:
discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.
2924:
2297:
Reimann, Mathias (2003). "Liability for Defective Products at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: Emergence of a Worldwide Standard".
2566:
3224:
3187:
3172:
2797:
937:
and during trial with objections.) Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery; these include information which is
826:
42:
2914:
2299:
1295:
433:
931:
relevant, rather than evidence which is truly relevant. (Issues of the scope of relevance are taken care of before trial with motions
845:
790:
482:
3040:
3003:
2377:
2347:
2274:
2237:
2203:
2069:
2014:
1928:
1891:
1853:
1816:
1779:
1743:
1706:
1651:
955:
202:
1404:
and digital information. These balance the rights to privacy of victims and witnesses with the right to fair trial for defendants.
487:
2862:
1555:
1254:
strongly dislike and oppose American discovery: they regard broad discovery in the hands of private parties as destructive of the
3241:
2661:
2535:
1037:
1026:
1022:
918:
837:
821:
438:
53:
1134:
The formal discovery process for federal criminal prosecutions is outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16.
3265:
758:
2931:
Faced with grinding discovery demands that distract employees from operating the business, even blameless defendants settle.
1278:
The discovery process in England and Wales is known as 'disclosure'. This process occurs in both civil and criminal cases.
896:
The number of concurrent custodian machines that can be processed is severely limited due to the network bandwidth required
84:
2482:
1074:
443:
58:
1968:
3270:
1454:
A mandatory disclosure pilot was introduced on 1 January 2019 for use in relation to a range of claims handled by the
428:
79:
1366:(a) setting out the nature of the accused's defence, including any particular defences on which he intends to rely,
2441:
1218:
most cases, and exaggeration of American litigiousness and its cost result in confusion within the justice system.
785:
193:
3191:
1969:"Our Inquisitorial Tradition: Equity Procedure, Due Process, and the Search for an Alternative to the Adversarial"
765:—thereby leaving the chancellors no choice but to delegate factfinding procedures like the taking of depositions.
616:. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a
1478:
1375:(ca) setting out particulars of the matters of fact on which he intends to rely for the purposes of his defence,
1287:
849:
more methods of discovery, no one state nor the federal government had ever attempted to allow litigators to use
680:
132:
95:
1266:, and insofar as discovery may be able to facilitate the creation of new rights, that is the prerogative of the
3260:
1431:, which have their own additional parts of procedure rules to follow) disclosure is governed by Part 31 of the
1251:
1054:
1045:
924:
1322:(b) give to the accused a written statement that there is no material of a description mentioned in paragraph
2093:
1121:
1113:
1025:
guide discovery in the U.S. federal court system. Most state courts follow a similar version based upon the
356:
1263:
1086:
1082:
1070:
1066:
773:
605:
601:
317:
312:
89:
1262:
in order to maintain the rule of law: the investigative objective of discovery is the prerogative of the
2421:
1467:
1455:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1291:
1239:
942:
830:
829:
merged together various trial courts, including the Court of Chancery, to form what is now known as the
810:
412:
349:
112:
2697:"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery"
1485:
1472:
947:
938:
866:
794:
742:
734:
683:
at least 14 days before the date of the examination. In London, the examinations took place before a
493:
161:
100:
761:
as cheaply as possible—by leaving it severely understaffed in comparison to its counterparts on the
1505:
1206:
781:
645:
344:
249:
223:
125:
2977:
1109:
also applies to evidence that would mitigate the defendant's sentence if a defendant is convicted.
2989:
2960:
2910:
2578:
2516:
2363:
2316:
2260:
2132:
2124:
1973:
1611:
1417:
874:
Currently the two main approaches for identifying responsive material on custodian machines are:
841:
762:
738:
696:
684:
294:
264:
229:
31:
820:
In England, discovery finally became available in the common law courts by the mid-1850s, after
2507:
Hawkins, Kenneth B. (December 1953). "Discovery and Rule 34: What's So Wrong About Surprise?".
2061:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1920:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1883:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1735:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1698:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
992:
tangible evidence, and for any reports prepared by expert witnesses who will testify at trial.
3036:
3030:
2999:
2920:
2895:
2373:
2367:
2343:
2270:
2233:
2199:
2094:"David Dudley Field and the Field Code: A Historical Analysis of an Earlier Procedural Vision"
2065:
2037:
2010:
2004:
2000:
1924:
1887:
1849:
1812:
1775:
1739:
1702:
1647:
1641:
1637:
1301:
The test for what information should be provided during disclosure is set by section 3 of the
1199:
1101:
979:
769:
750:
717:
633:
478:
2993:
2335:
2264:
2059:
1918:
1881:
1841:
1804:
1767:
1733:
1696:
893:
IT administrators are generally unhappy with the installation of agents on custodian machines
644:(which influenced Chancery procedure) had originated with "the practice of the courts of the
2952:
2897:
Double Billing: A Young Lawyer's Tale of Greed, Sex, Lies, and the Pursuit of a Swivel Chair
2464:
2308:
2227:
2193:
2163:"Fishing Expeditions Allowed: The Historical Background of the 1938 Federal Discovery Rules"
2116:
2108:
1603:
1090:
1058:
967:
963:
951:
932:
617:
609:
339:
334:
304:
1372:(c) setting out, in the case of each such matter, why he takes issue with the prosecution,
1089:
are exchanged between the parties and not filed with the court. Parties, however, can file
1000:
rights, specifically the defendant's constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
768:
Despite these defects, English settlers brought discovery and depositions with them to the
3211:
3159:
2833:
2434:
1424:
1226:
1078:
1062:
729:
664:
597:
589:
299:
188:
155:
3093:
2414:"Method and system for searching for, and collecting, electronically-stored information"
695:. Once agreed upon, the court would grant them authority to examine witnesses by way of
2055:
1964:
1914:
1877:
1729:
1692:
1259:
1243:
593:
423:
269:
17:
3254:
2723:"18 U.S. Code § 3500 - Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses"
2340:
Managing Records in Global Financial Markets: Ensuring Compliance and Mitigating Risk
2136:
1615:
692:
688:
448:
3245:
2601:
2401:
Windows forensics: The field guide for conducting corporate computer investigations.
1526:
1030:
2634:
663:(1558–1603) and the late seventeenth century, positions were gradually replaced by
629:
463:
259:
234:
219:
198:
67:
2722:
1416:
has been known as "disclosure" since the reforms to civil procedure introduced by
1348:
encounter material which points away from the suspect and is in turn disclosable.
565:
2696:
2457:"ISEEK, a tool for high speed, concurrent, distributed forensic data acquisition"
2416:. Elliot Spencer, Samuel J. Baker, Erik Andersen, Perlustro LP. 25 November 2009.
1846:
Remembering Protest in Britain since 1500: Memory, Materiality, and the Landscape
1809:
Remembering Protest in Britain since 1500: Memory, Materiality, and the Landscape
1772:
Remembering Protest in Britain since 1500: Memory, Materiality, and the Landscape
1369:(b) indicating the matters of fact on which he takes issue with the prosecution,
2798:"California Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 2030.030. Propounding Interrogatories"
1413:
1267:
1255:
1234:
1214:
988:
660:
376:
146:
118:
2468:
1607:
569:
Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990–2006
3205:
Practice Direction 51U - Disclosure Pilot for the Business and Property Courts
2413:
2006:
The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts
1643:
The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts
1621:
1363:(1) For the purposes of this Part a defence statement is a written statement—
1018:
984:
712:
581:
524:
468:
239:
1286:
Criminal disclosure is the process by which the Crown, typically through the
2338:. In Coleman, Lynn; Lemieux, Victoria L.; Stone, Rod; Yeo, Geoffrey (eds.).
1222:
1049:
1041:
708:
704:
649:
641:
405:
386:
381:
254:
183:
1439:
and cost-effective manner". As in the United States, certain documents are
2120:
3160:"Bater-James & Anor v R. [2020] EWCA Crim 790 (23 June 2020)"
2995:
Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation
2369:
Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation
2266:
Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation
974:
613:
517:
214:
171:
2635:"Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection"
2520:
2036:
An Act to Amend the Judicial System of the United States, ch. 31, § 25,
890:
The indexing process is not 100% reliable in finding responsive material
2978:
Nora Freeman Engstrom, The Lessons of Lone Pine, 129 Yale L.J. 2 (2019)
2964:
2320:
746:
585:
473:
279:
244:
2128:
1156:
to provide uniform process when discovery is to be done out of state.
648:
in the early thirteenth century". Although canonists also looked to
506:
2956:
2312:
2112:
1225:
cases, some courts may grant a defendant's pre-trial request for a
564:
366:
987:
is obligated to provide to the defendant any information that is
27:
Pretrial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence
2456:
1556:"The Federal Rules, the Adversary Process, and Discovery Reform"
745:. The secrecy was thought to be absolutely essential to prevent
400:
3032:
Failures of American Civil Justice in International Perspective
2662:"Criminal Discovery - The Circuitous Road to a Two-Way Street"
1646:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 158, fn. 117.
1246:, rather than dovetailing their claims with other plaintiffs.
950:
or "e-discovery" refers to discovery of information stored in
577:
2483:"Self-Collection In E-Discovery — Risks Vs. Rewards - Law360"
2602:"Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990-2006"
1527:"Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990–2006"
883:
In relation to the first approach there are several issues:
596:
from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as
3192:
PRACTICE DIRECTION 31B – DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
2536:"Motions in Limine in Employment Discrimination Litigation"
1594:
Goldstein, Alan K. (1981). "A Short History of Discovery".
3194:, last updated 1 October 2020, accessed 11 September 2022
1508:
from judicial opinions or other documents created by the
2916:
Second-Best Justice: The Virtues of Japanese Private Law
2336:"Chapter 2: Conflicts of laws in multiple jurisdictions"
2232:(4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 9.
2198:(4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 8.
1848:. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 81–106.
1811:. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 81–106.
1774:. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 81–106.
3035:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 151.
2372:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 124.
1335:
The Attorney General's Disclosure Guidelines provide:
2998:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 70.
2455:
Richard, Adams; Graham, Mann; Valerie, Hobbs (2017).
2269:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 69.
2009:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 159.
970:, which eliminates the expense and risks of a trial.
584:
jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a
3024:
3022:
2600:
Kyckelhahn, Tracey; Cohen, Thomas H. (August 2008).
1525:
Kyckelhahn, Tracey; Cohen, Thomas H. (August 2008).
2050:
2048:
2046:
1632:
1630:
628:Discovery evolved out of a unique feature of early
612:. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using
3214:, updated 1 October 2018, accessed 28 January 2021
3147:End to end rape review report with correction slip
1443:, such as letters between solicitors and experts.
1345:The Attorney General's Disclosure Guidelines 2020
2064:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 103.
1687:
1685:
3094:"Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996"
3063:
3061:
3059:
1923:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 29.
1886:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 28.
1844:. In Griffin, Carl J.; McDonagh, Briony (eds.).
1807:. In Griffin, Carl J.; McDonagh, Briony (eds.).
1770:. In Griffin, Carl J.; McDonagh, Briony (eds.).
1738:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 92.
1701:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 25.
1154:Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act
857:FRCP that went into effect on December 1, 2015.
3225:"English court disclosure pilot made permanent"
1355:
1337:
1307:
1010:Civil discovery under United States federal law
915:Civil discovery under United States federal law
1392:based on a clear set of pre-existing reasons.
1303:Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
3069:"Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure"
2863:"Discovery Abuse: Appointing Special Masters"
1412:The discovery process in the jurisdiction of
546:
8:
2919:. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2342:. London: Facet Publishing. pp. 17–32.
1678:. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 237–242.
2890:
2888:
1589:
1587:
1585:
1583:
1581:
801:to conduct oral examinations of witnesses.
2900:(New York: William Morrow, 1998), 125–126.
2156:
2154:
2152:
2150:
2148:
2146:
1959:
1957:
1955:
1953:
1951:
1949:
1947:
553:
539:
38:
2691:
2689:
2687:
2628:
2626:
1867:At p. 85. Available through SpringerLink.
1830:At p. 87. Available through SpringerLink.
1793:At p. 86. Available through SpringerLink.
3183:
3181:
1449:Peruvian Guano v Financiaso Compagneiage
1125:, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and the resulting
588:in which each party, through the law of
2666:University of San Francisco Law Journal
2300:The American Journal of Comparative Law
1517:
1357:Contents of the Defence Case Statement
505:
365:
325:
278:
170:
145:
66:
41:
2703:. Cornell Law School. 30 November 2011
2641:. Cornell Law School. 30 November 2011
2430:
2419:
1510:federal judiciary of the United States
632:pleading procedure before the English
3135:Decriminalisation of Rape Report 2020
2226:Matthews, Paul; Malek, Hodge (2012).
2192:Matthews, Paul; Malek, Hodge (2012).
1451:(1881) 10 EWR 125) and linkage test.
1232:, which requires a plaintiff to show
737:(i.e., driven by the court), and not
7:
827:Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873
797:to allow masters in equity suits in
602:requests for production of documents
2565:Kelly, Robert L. (September 2007).
2403:Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.
1842:"Relating Early Modern Depositions"
1805:"Relating Early Modern Depositions"
1768:"Relating Early Modern Depositions"
1560:University of Pittsburgh Law Review
1296:European Convention on Human Rights
1221:To weed out spurious plaintiffs in
977:cases. Under the rule set forth in
659:At some point between the reign of
2802:California Legislative Information
2753:California Legislative Information
2092:Subrin, Stephen N. (Autumn 1988).
25:
1676:The Elizabethan Court of Chancery
1360:6A Contents of defence statement
956:Electronically Stored Information
836:In 1938, the promulgation of the
3242:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
2834:"Form Interrogatories - General"
2822:Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060
2774:Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.010
2540:University of Memphis Law Review
2509:American Bar Association Journal
1497:
1038:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1031:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1023:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
919:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
838:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
54:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
2161:Subrin, Stephen N. (May 1998).
1554:Schwarzner, William W. (1988).
973:Discovery is also available in
3137:endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk
2804:. California State Legislature
2755:. California State Legislature
2567:"The Tech Side of E-Discovery"
1311:The CPIA 1996 Disclosure Test
1048:between the parties after the
1029:"Depositions & Discovery"
1015:Discovery in the United States
759:judiciary of England and Wales
439:Notwithstanding verdict (JNOV)
1:
2787:, 54 Cal.2d 318, 325 (1960).
2611:. U.S. Department of Justice
2609:Bureau of Justice Statistics
1456:Business and Property Courts
1073:of documents (RFP). In most
1017:is unique compared to other
656:were unknown to the Romans.
59:Doctrines of civil procedure
3029:Maxeiner, James R. (2011).
2727:Legal Information Institute
2701:Legal Information Institute
2639:Legal Information Institute
2534:Warner, Charles C. (1998).
3287:
1608:10.1177/147377958101000404
1534:U.S. Department of Justice
1504:This article incorporates
1077:, the formal requests for
1007:
912:
864:
786:New York Court of Chancery
194:Case Information Statement
29:
3246:Depositions and Discovery
2167:Boston College Law Review
1596:Anglo-American Law Review
1479:subpoena ad testificandum
1288:Crown Prosecution Service
1207:multi-level playing field
681:subpoena ad testificandum
429:As a matter of law (JMOL)
2992:; Farhang, Sean (2017).
2660:Kane, Robert F. (1972).
2469:10.4225/75/5a838d3b1d27f
2366:; Farhang, Sean (2017).
2263:; Farhang, Sean (2017).
1840:Falvey, Heather (2018).
1803:Falvey, Heather (2018).
1766:Falvey, Heather (2018).
1316:(1)The prosecutor must—
1260:monopolized by the state
925:law of the United States
840:(FRCP) (pursuant to the
326:Resolution without trial
30:Not to be confused with
2861:Lord, Miles W. (1986).
1238:evidence of injury and
1122:Giglio v. United States
1114:Jencks v. United States
1075:federal district courts
606:requests for admissions
3266:Information governance
2429:Cite journal requires
2101:Law and History Review
1506:public domain material
1429:personal injury claims
1380:
1354:
1330:
1087:request for production
1083:request for admissions
1071:request for production
1067:request for admissions
954:(often referred to as
774:United States Congress
570:
318:Request for production
313:Request for admissions
18:Disclosure of evidence
3203:Ministry of Justice,
3125:Section 6A CPIA 1996.
2749:"Civil Discovery Act"
1468:Early case assessment
1433:Civil Procedure Rules
1427:(but not for example
1292:right to a fair trial
1046:initiate a conference
831:High Court of Justice
811:David Dudley Field II
743:ecclesiastical courts
568:
351:Involuntary dismissal
2729:. Cornell Law School
2581:on 30 September 2017
2334:Sautter, Ed (2011).
1674:Jones, W.J. (1967).
1486:subpoena duces tecum
1383:Third party material
1138:District of Columbia
948:Electronic discovery
867:Electronic discovery
861:Electronic discovery
795:Federal Equity Rules
494:Declaratory judgment
162:Forum non conveniens
45:in the United States
3188:Ministry of Justice
2990:Burbank, Stephen B.
2945:Stanford Law Review
2577:(1). Archived from
2440:CS1 maint: others (
2364:Burbank, Stephen B.
2261:Burbank, Stephen B.
1327:Section 3 CPIA 1996
1282:Criminal disclosure
1252:civil law countries
1055:initial disclosures
723:This procedure for
444:Motion to set aside
345:Voluntary dismissal
250:Indispensable party
224:affirmative defense
3271:Records management
3210:2021-01-21 at the
3149:British Government
3116:British Government
2894:Cameron Stracher,
2867:Hamline Law Review
2785:Singer v. Sup. Ct.
2571:Business Law Today
2056:Kessler, Amalia D.
2001:Brundage, James A.
1974:Cornell Law Review
1915:Kessler, Amalia D.
1878:Kessler, Amalia D.
1730:Kessler, Amalia D.
1693:Kessler, Amalia D.
1638:Brundage, James A.
1620:Available through
1423:For many types of
1418:Lord Justice Woolf
1268:legislative branch
1240:specific causation
842:Rules Enabling Act
791:U.S. Supreme Court
763:European continent
697:dedimus potestatem
687:or an examiner in
571:
295:Initial conference
280:Pretrial procedure
32:Discovery doctrine
2926:978-0-226-28199-5
2911:Ramseyer, J. Mark
2841:California Courts
2515:(12): 1075–1079.
2399:Steel, C (2006).
1414:England and Wales
1274:England and Wales
1166:Brady v. Maryland
1102:Brady v. Maryland
1036:According to the
980:Brady v. Maryland
952:electronic format
770:Thirteen Colonies
751:witness tampering
718:cross-examination
693:country gentlemen
634:Court of Chancery
563:
562:
16:(Redirected from
3278:
3229:
3228:
3221:
3215:
3201:
3195:
3185:
3176:
3170:
3164:
3163:
3156:
3150:
3144:
3138:
3132:
3126:
3123:
3117:
3114:Code of practice
3111:
3105:
3104:
3102:
3100:
3090:
3084:
3083:
3081:
3079:
3073:
3065:
3054:
3053:
3051:
3049:
3026:
3017:
3016:
3014:
3012:
2986:
2980:
2975:
2969:
2968:
2951:(6): 1393–1445.
2940:
2934:
2933:
2907:
2901:
2892:
2883:
2882:
2880:
2878:
2858:
2852:
2851:
2849:
2847:
2838:
2829:
2823:
2820:
2814:
2813:
2811:
2809:
2794:
2788:
2782:
2776:
2771:
2765:
2764:
2762:
2760:
2745:
2739:
2738:
2736:
2734:
2719:
2713:
2712:
2710:
2708:
2693:
2682:
2681:
2679:
2677:
2657:
2651:
2650:
2648:
2646:
2630:
2621:
2620:
2618:
2616:
2606:
2597:
2591:
2590:
2588:
2586:
2562:
2556:
2555:
2553:
2551:
2531:
2525:
2524:
2504:
2498:
2497:
2495:
2493:
2479:
2473:
2472:
2452:
2446:
2445:
2438:
2432:
2427:
2425:
2417:
2410:
2404:
2397:
2391:
2390:
2388:
2386:
2360:
2354:
2353:
2331:
2325:
2324:
2294:
2288:
2287:
2285:
2283:
2257:
2251:
2250:
2248:
2246:
2223:
2217:
2216:
2214:
2212:
2189:
2183:
2182:
2180:
2178:
2158:
2141:
2140:
2098:
2089:
2083:
2082:
2080:
2078:
2052:
2041:
2038:2 Stat. 156, 166
2034:
2028:
2027:
2025:
2023:
1997:
1991:
1990:
1988:
1986:
1961:
1942:
1941:
1939:
1937:
1911:
1905:
1904:
1902:
1900:
1874:
1868:
1866:
1864:
1862:
1837:
1831:
1829:
1827:
1825:
1800:
1794:
1792:
1790:
1788:
1763:
1757:
1756:
1754:
1752:
1726:
1720:
1719:
1717:
1715:
1689:
1680:
1679:
1671:
1665:
1664:
1662:
1660:
1634:
1625:
1619:
1591:
1576:
1575:
1573:
1571:
1551:
1545:
1544:
1542:
1540:
1531:
1522:
1501:
1500:
1408:Civil disclosure
1352:
1328:
1264:executive branch
1200:war of attrition
1091:motion to compel
968:summary judgment
825:discovery. The
646:Italian communes
618:motion to compel
555:
548:
541:
352:
340:Summary judgment
335:Default judgment
85:Federal question
39:
21:
3286:
3285:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3277:
3276:
3275:
3261:Discovery (law)
3251:
3250:
3238:
3233:
3232:
3223:
3222:
3218:
3212:Wayback Machine
3202:
3198:
3186:
3179:
3171:
3167:
3158:
3157:
3153:
3145:
3141:
3133:
3129:
3124:
3120:
3112:
3108:
3098:
3096:
3092:
3091:
3087:
3077:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3066:
3057:
3047:
3045:
3043:
3028:
3027:
3020:
3010:
3008:
3006:
2988:
2987:
2983:
2976:
2972:
2957:10.2307/1229162
2942:
2941:
2937:
2927:
2909:
2908:
2904:
2893:
2886:
2876:
2874:
2860:
2859:
2855:
2845:
2843:
2836:
2832:
2830:
2826:
2821:
2817:
2807:
2805:
2796:
2795:
2791:
2783:
2779:
2772:
2768:
2758:
2756:
2747:
2746:
2742:
2732:
2730:
2721:
2720:
2716:
2706:
2704:
2695:
2694:
2685:
2675:
2673:
2659:
2658:
2654:
2644:
2642:
2633:
2631:
2624:
2614:
2612:
2604:
2599:
2598:
2594:
2584:
2582:
2564:
2563:
2559:
2549:
2547:
2533:
2532:
2528:
2506:
2505:
2501:
2491:
2489:
2481:
2480:
2476:
2461:Research Online
2454:
2453:
2449:
2439:
2428:
2418:
2412:
2411:
2407:
2398:
2394:
2384:
2382:
2380:
2362:
2361:
2357:
2350:
2333:
2332:
2328:
2313:10.2307/3649130
2296:
2295:
2291:
2281:
2279:
2277:
2259:
2258:
2254:
2244:
2242:
2240:
2225:
2224:
2220:
2210:
2208:
2206:
2191:
2190:
2186:
2176:
2174:
2160:
2159:
2144:
2096:
2091:
2090:
2086:
2076:
2074:
2072:
2054:
2053:
2044:
2035:
2031:
2021:
2019:
2017:
1999:
1998:
1994:
1984:
1982:
1965:Kessler, Amalia
1963:
1962:
1945:
1935:
1933:
1931:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1898:
1896:
1894:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1860:
1858:
1856:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1823:
1821:
1819:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1786:
1784:
1782:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1750:
1748:
1746:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1713:
1711:
1709:
1691:
1690:
1683:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1658:
1656:
1654:
1636:
1635:
1628:
1593:
1592:
1579:
1569:
1567:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1538:
1536:
1529:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1498:
1495:
1464:
1425:cause of action
1410:
1385:
1353:
1344:
1329:
1326:
1284:
1276:
1244:expert's report
1196:
1178:
1162:
1149:
1140:
1079:interrogatories
1063:interrogatories
1027:FRCP, Chapter V
1012:
1006:
998:Fifth Amendment
921:
911:
869:
863:
730:Lord Chancellor
665:interrogatories
626:
598:interrogatories
590:civil procedure
559:
530:
499:
466:
457:
426:
417:
413:Burden of proof
361:
350:
309:
300:Interrogatories
274:
208:
189:Cause of action
186:
156:Change of venue
139:
115:
106:
94:
82:
44:
43:Civil procedure
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3284:
3282:
3274:
3273:
3268:
3263:
3253:
3252:
3249:
3248:
3237:
3236:External links
3234:
3231:
3230:
3216:
3196:
3177:
3165:
3151:
3139:
3127:
3118:
3106:
3085:
3055:
3041:
3018:
3004:
2981:
2970:
2935:
2925:
2902:
2884:
2853:
2824:
2815:
2789:
2777:
2766:
2740:
2714:
2683:
2652:
2622:
2592:
2557:
2526:
2499:
2487:www.law360.com
2474:
2447:
2431:|journal=
2405:
2392:
2378:
2355:
2348:
2326:
2307:(4): 751–838.
2289:
2275:
2252:
2238:
2218:
2204:
2184:
2142:
2121:2047/d20002460
2113:10.2307/743686
2107:(2): 311–373.
2084:
2070:
2042:
2029:
2015:
1992:
1981:(5): 1181–1276
1943:
1929:
1906:
1892:
1869:
1854:
1832:
1817:
1795:
1780:
1758:
1744:
1721:
1707:
1681:
1666:
1652:
1626:
1602:(4): 257–270.
1577:
1546:
1516:
1515:
1494:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1482:
1475:
1473:Second request
1470:
1463:
1460:
1409:
1406:
1384:
1381:
1342:
1324:
1283:
1280:
1275:
1272:
1195:
1192:
1177:
1174:
1161:
1158:
1148:
1145:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1118:
1110:
1008:Main article:
1005:
1002:
910:
907:
898:
897:
894:
891:
888:
865:Main article:
862:
859:
799:federal courts
625:
622:
561:
560:
558:
557:
550:
543:
535:
532:
531:
529:
528:
521:
513:
510:
509:
503:
502:
501:
500:
498:
497:
491:
485:
479:Attorney's fee
476:
471:
460:
458:
456:
455:
446:
441:
436:
431:
420:
416:
415:
410:
398:
391:
390:
389:
384:
373:
370:
369:
363:
362:
360:
359:
354:
347:
342:
337:
331:
328:
327:
323:
322:
321:
320:
315:
308:
307:
302:
297:
292:
286:
283:
282:
276:
275:
273:
272:
267:
262:
257:
252:
247:
242:
237:
232:
227:
217:
211:
210:
209:
207:
206:
196:
191:
180:
175:
174:
168:
167:
166:
165:
158:
150:
149:
143:
142:
141:
140:
138:
137:
129:
122:
109:
107:
105:
104:
98:
92:
87:
80:Subject-matter
76:
71:
70:
64:
63:
62:
61:
56:
48:
47:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3283:
3272:
3269:
3267:
3264:
3262:
3259:
3258:
3256:
3247:
3243:
3240:
3239:
3235:
3226:
3220:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3206:
3200:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3184:
3182:
3178:
3174:
3169:
3166:
3161:
3155:
3152:
3148:
3143:
3140:
3136:
3131:
3128:
3122:
3119:
3115:
3110:
3107:
3095:
3089:
3086:
3070:
3064:
3062:
3060:
3056:
3044:
3042:9781139504898
3038:
3034:
3033:
3025:
3023:
3019:
3007:
3005:9781107136991
3001:
2997:
2996:
2991:
2985:
2982:
2979:
2974:
2971:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2946:
2939:
2936:
2932:
2928:
2922:
2918:
2917:
2912:
2906:
2903:
2899:
2898:
2891:
2889:
2885:
2872:
2868:
2864:
2857:
2854:
2842:
2835:
2828:
2825:
2819:
2816:
2803:
2799:
2793:
2790:
2786:
2781:
2778:
2775:
2770:
2767:
2754:
2750:
2744:
2741:
2728:
2724:
2718:
2715:
2702:
2698:
2692:
2690:
2688:
2684:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2656:
2653:
2640:
2636:
2629:
2627:
2623:
2610:
2603:
2596:
2593:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2561:
2558:
2545:
2541:
2537:
2530:
2527:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2503:
2500:
2488:
2484:
2478:
2475:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2451:
2448:
2443:
2436:
2423:
2415:
2409:
2406:
2402:
2396:
2393:
2381:
2379:9781107136991
2375:
2371:
2370:
2365:
2359:
2356:
2351:
2349:9781856046633
2345:
2341:
2337:
2330:
2327:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2302:
2301:
2293:
2290:
2278:
2276:9781107136991
2272:
2268:
2267:
2262:
2256:
2253:
2241:
2239:9780414047792
2235:
2231:
2230:
2222:
2219:
2207:
2205:9780414047792
2201:
2197:
2196:
2188:
2185:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2157:
2155:
2153:
2151:
2149:
2147:
2143:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2095:
2088:
2085:
2073:
2071:9780300222258
2067:
2063:
2062:
2057:
2051:
2049:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2033:
2030:
2018:
2016:9780226077611
2012:
2008:
2007:
2002:
1996:
1993:
1980:
1976:
1975:
1970:
1967:(July 2005).
1966:
1960:
1958:
1956:
1954:
1952:
1950:
1948:
1944:
1932:
1930:9780300222258
1926:
1922:
1921:
1916:
1910:
1907:
1895:
1893:9780300222258
1889:
1885:
1884:
1879:
1873:
1870:
1857:
1855:9783319742434
1851:
1847:
1843:
1836:
1833:
1820:
1818:9783319742434
1814:
1810:
1806:
1799:
1796:
1783:
1781:9783319742434
1777:
1773:
1769:
1762:
1759:
1747:
1745:9780300222258
1741:
1737:
1736:
1731:
1725:
1722:
1710:
1708:9780300222258
1704:
1700:
1699:
1694:
1688:
1686:
1682:
1677:
1670:
1667:
1655:
1653:9780226077611
1649:
1645:
1644:
1639:
1633:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1590:
1588:
1586:
1584:
1582:
1578:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1550:
1547:
1535:
1528:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1513:
1511:
1507:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1483:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1459:
1457:
1452:
1450:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1437:proportionate
1434:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1419:
1415:
1407:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1349:
1341:
1336:
1333:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1306:
1304:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1281:
1279:
1273:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1229:
1224:
1219:
1216:
1211:
1208:
1203:
1201:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1182:
1175:
1173:
1169:
1167:
1159:
1157:
1155:
1146:
1144:
1137:
1135:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1003:
1001:
999:
993:
990:
986:
982:
981:
976:
971:
969:
965:
959:
957:
953:
949:
944:
940:
936:
935:
930:
926:
920:
916:
909:United States
908:
906:
902:
895:
892:
889:
886:
885:
884:
881:
878:
875:
872:
868:
860:
858:
854:
852:
847:
843:
839:
834:
832:
828:
823:
818:
814:
812:
806:
802:
800:
796:
792:
787:
783:
778:
775:
771:
766:
764:
760:
754:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:inquisitorial
731:
726:
721:
719:
714:
710:
706:
700:
698:
694:
690:
689:Chancery Lane
686:
682:
676:
672:
670:
666:
662:
657:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
623:
621:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:, can obtain
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
567:
556:
551:
549:
544:
542:
537:
536:
534:
533:
527:
526:
522:
520:
519:
515:
514:
512:
511:
508:
504:
495:
492:
489:
486:
484:
483:American rule
480:
477:
475:
472:
470:
465:
462:
461:
459:
453:
451:
447:
445:
442:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
425:
422:
421:
419:
418:
414:
411:
408:
407:
402:
399:
397:
396:
392:
388:
385:
383:
380:
379:
378:
375:
374:
372:
371:
368:
364:
358:
355:
353:
348:
346:
343:
341:
338:
336:
333:
332:
330:
329:
324:
319:
316:
314:
311:
310:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
291:
288:
287:
285:
284:
281:
277:
271:
270:Other motions
268:
266:
263:
261:
258:
256:
253:
251:
248:
246:
243:
241:
238:
236:
233:
231:
228:
225:
221:
218:
216:
213:
212:
204:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:
185:
182:
181:
179:
178:
177:
176:
173:
169:
164:
163:
159:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
148:
144:
135:
134:
130:
128:
127:
123:
121:
120:
114:
111:
110:
108:
102:
99:
97:
93:
91:
88:
86:
81:
78:
77:
75:
74:
73:
72:
69:
65:
60:
57:
55:
52:
51:
50:
49:
46:
40:
37:
33:
19:
3219:
3199:
3168:
3154:
3142:
3130:
3121:
3109:
3097:. Retrieved
3088:
3076:. Retrieved
3046:. Retrieved
3031:
3009:. Retrieved
2994:
2984:
2973:
2948:
2944:
2938:
2930:
2915:
2905:
2896:
2877:30 September
2875:. Retrieved
2870:
2866:
2856:
2846:30 September
2844:. Retrieved
2840:
2827:
2818:
2808:30 September
2806:. Retrieved
2801:
2792:
2784:
2780:
2773:
2769:
2759:30 September
2757:. Retrieved
2752:
2743:
2733:30 September
2731:. Retrieved
2726:
2717:
2707:30 September
2705:. Retrieved
2700:
2676:30 September
2674:. Retrieved
2669:
2665:
2655:
2645:30 September
2643:. Retrieved
2638:
2615:30 September
2613:. Retrieved
2608:
2595:
2585:30 September
2583:. Retrieved
2579:the original
2574:
2570:
2560:
2550:30 September
2548:. Retrieved
2543:
2539:
2529:
2512:
2508:
2502:
2490:. Retrieved
2486:
2477:
2460:
2450:
2422:cite journal
2408:
2400:
2395:
2383:. Retrieved
2368:
2358:
2339:
2329:
2304:
2298:
2292:
2280:. Retrieved
2265:
2255:
2243:. Retrieved
2228:
2221:
2209:. Retrieved
2194:
2187:
2175:. Retrieved
2173:(3): 691–745
2170:
2166:
2104:
2100:
2087:
2075:. Retrieved
2060:
2032:
2020:. Retrieved
2005:
1995:
1983:. Retrieved
1978:
1972:
1934:. Retrieved
1919:
1909:
1897:. Retrieved
1882:
1872:
1859:. Retrieved
1845:
1835:
1822:. Retrieved
1808:
1798:
1785:. Retrieved
1771:
1761:
1749:. Retrieved
1734:
1724:
1712:. Retrieved
1697:
1675:
1669:
1657:. Retrieved
1642:
1599:
1595:
1570:30 September
1568:. Retrieved
1563:
1559:
1549:
1539:30 September
1537:. Retrieved
1533:
1520:
1503:
1496:
1484:
1477:
1453:
1448:
1445:
1422:
1411:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1346:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1300:
1285:
1277:
1248:
1233:
1227:
1220:
1212:
1204:
1197:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1170:
1165:
1163:
1150:
1141:
1133:
1126:
1120:
1112:
1106:
1100:
1095:
1035:
1013:
996:defendant's
994:
978:
972:
960:
943:work product
933:
928:
922:
903:
899:
882:
879:
876:
873:
870:
855:
850:
835:
819:
815:
807:
803:
793:amended the
779:
767:
755:
724:
722:
701:
677:
673:
668:
658:
653:
637:
627:
573:
572:
523:
516:
488:English rule
449:
434:Renewed JMOL
404:
393:
289:
265:Intervention
260:Interpleader
235:Counterclaim
199:Class action
160:
133:Quasi in rem
131:
124:
117:
96:Supplemental
68:Jurisdiction
36:
2632:See, e.g.,
2022:12 December
1659:12 December
1256:rule of law
1235:prima facie
1215:tort reform
1059:depositions
1004:Federal law
989:exculpatory
958:, or ESI).
846:progressive
739:adversarial
661:Elizabeth I
610:depositions
452:(new trial)
305:Depositions
119:In personam
3255:Categories
3175:ico.org.uk
3173:ICO report
2831:See e.g.,
2245:5 December
2229:Disclosure
2211:5 December
2195:Disclosure
2077:3 December
1936:24 October
1899:24 October
1861:24 October
1824:24 October
1787:24 October
1751:24 October
1714:24 October
1622:HeinOnline
1493:References
1441:privileged
1176:California
1069:(RFA) and
1019:common law
985:prosecutor
964:settlement
939:privileged
923:Under the
913:See also:
822:Parliament
782:James Kent
713:Whittlesey
669:initiating
654:positiones
638:positiones
582:common law
525:Certiorari
469:Injunction
357:Settlement
240:Crossclaim
3078:28 August
2137:145512997
1616:184613750
1420:in 1999.
1228:Lone Pine
1223:mass tort
1194:Criticism
1147:State law
1050:complaint
1042:plaintiff
934:in limine
709:enclosure
705:narrative
650:Roman law
642:canon law
630:equitable
614:subpoenas
576:, in the
574:Discovery
406:voir dire
387:defendant
382:plaintiff
290:Discovery
255:Impleader
184:Complaint
172:Pleadings
90:Diversity
3208:Archived
2913:(2015).
2521:25718642
2492:10 March
2058:(2017).
2003:(2008).
1985:15 April
1917:(2017).
1880:(2017).
1732:(2017).
1695:(2017).
1640:(2008).
1462:See also
1343:—
1325:—
1298:(ECHR).
1130:process.
975:criminal
941:and the
929:might be
725:ex parte
711:riot in
594:evidence
518:Mandamus
424:Judgment
215:Demurrer
205:) )
203:2005 Act
113:Personal
3099:14 June
3011:12 July
2965:1229162
2385:12 July
2321:3649130
2282:12 July
2177:23 June
2040:(1802).
1242:via an
784:of the
747:perjury
624:History
586:lawsuit
474:Damages
454: )
450:De novo
403: (
377:Parties
245:Joinder
222: (
201: (
101:Removal
3074:. 2020
3048:9 June
3039:
3002:
2963:
2923:
2519:
2376:
2346:
2319:
2273:
2236:
2202:
2135:
2129:743686
2127:
2068:
2013:
1927:
1890:
1852:
1815:
1778:
1742:
1705:
1650:
1614:
1502:
1351:trial.
1160:Alaska
1127:Giglio
1040:, the
983:, the
685:master
507:Appeal
464:Remedy
395:Pro se
220:Answer
126:In rem
3072:(PDF)
2961:JSTOR
2837:(PDF)
2672:: 203
2605:(PDF)
2546:: 823
2517:JSTOR
2317:JSTOR
2133:S2CID
2125:JSTOR
2097:(PDF)
1612:S2CID
1566:: 703
1530:(PDF)
1230:order
1213:Some
1107:Brady
1044:must
367:Trial
230:Reply
147:Venue
3101:2023
3080:2022
3050:2020
3037:ISBN
3013:2020
3000:ISBN
2921:ISBN
2879:2017
2873:: 63
2848:2017
2810:2017
2761:2017
2735:2017
2709:2017
2678:2017
2647:2017
2617:2017
2587:2017
2552:2017
2494:2018
2442:link
2435:help
2387:2020
2374:ISBN
2344:ISBN
2284:2020
2271:ISBN
2247:2022
2234:ISBN
2213:2022
2200:ISBN
2179:2020
2079:2023
2066:ISBN
2024:2023
2011:ISBN
1987:2019
1938:2023
1925:ISBN
1901:2023
1888:ISBN
1863:2021
1850:ISBN
1826:2021
1813:ISBN
1789:2021
1776:ISBN
1753:2023
1740:ISBN
1716:2023
1703:ISBN
1661:2023
1648:ISBN
1572:2017
1541:2017
1187:must
1085:and
917:and
749:and
608:and
401:Jury
2953:doi
2465:doi
2309:doi
2117:hdl
2109:doi
1604:doi
966:or
851:all
640:in
580:of
578:law
3257::
3244::
3190:,
3180:^
3058:^
3021:^
2959:.
2949:46
2947:.
2929:.
2887:^
2869:.
2865:.
2839:.
2800:.
2751:.
2725:.
2699:.
2686:^
2668:.
2664:.
2637:.
2625:^
2607:.
2575:17
2573:.
2569:.
2544:29
2542:.
2538:.
2513:39
2511:.
2485:.
2463:.
2459:.
2426::
2424:}}
2420:{{
2315:.
2305:51
2303:.
2171:39
2169:.
2165:.
2145:^
2131:.
2123:.
2115:.
2103:.
2099:.
2045:^
1979:90
1977:.
1971:.
1946:^
1684:^
1629:^
1610:.
1600:10
1598:.
1580:^
1564:50
1562:.
1558:.
1532:.
1270:.
1081:,
1065:,
1061:,
1057:,
1033:.
699:.
652:,
604:,
600:,
3227:.
3162:.
3103:.
3082:.
3052:.
3015:.
2967:.
2955::
2881:.
2871:9
2850:.
2812:.
2763:.
2737:.
2711:.
2680:.
2670:7
2649:.
2619:.
2589:.
2554:.
2523:.
2496:.
2471:.
2467::
2444:)
2437:)
2433:(
2389:.
2352:.
2323:.
2311::
2286:.
2249:.
2215:.
2181:.
2139:.
2119::
2111::
2105:6
2081:.
2026:.
1989:.
1940:.
1903:.
1865:.
1828:.
1791:.
1755:.
1718:.
1663:.
1624:.
1618:.
1606::
1574:.
1543:.
1512:.
554:e
547:t
540:v
496:)
490:)
481:(
467:(
427:(
409:)
226:)
187:(
136:)
116:(
103:)
83:(
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.