1132:"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.
705:
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
656:: 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
1191:. 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.
806:
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.
1174:
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
1333:
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.
742:; 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.
1161:
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.
798:
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
1294:(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.
555:
794:
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.
1179:
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.
1157:, 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.
625:: 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
778:
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
1440:
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 (
802:) 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.
1492:
833:) 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
745:
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,
1380:
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
1160:
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,
1118:
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
984:
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
889:
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.
845:
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
716:
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
1439:
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
1396:
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
1388:
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
1340:
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
797:
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
663:
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
1131:
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
934:
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,
813:
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
1206:
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
1178:
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
837:
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
793:
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
1384:
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
1332:
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
1173:
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
704:
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
980:
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
777:
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
1343:
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
805:
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
1041:
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:
893:
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.
1169:
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.
1451:, 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.
730:(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
696:, 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
1428:(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
1308:(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
1389:
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.'
916:, 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
680:. 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
691:
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
1392:
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.
1106:, 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.
866:(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
869:(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.
1198:
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.
1238:
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
1140:
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
721:
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
667:
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
950:
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
765:
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."
1381:
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.
935:
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.)
3200:
746:
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
822:. 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.
3061:
1371:(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.
1094:, 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.
1082:
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.
860:
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.
3139:
2741:
664:
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.
717:
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
3197:
2155:
1325:
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.
660:
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.
1153:
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
842:
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.
3106:
3127:
541:
1283:. 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
1085:
In federal criminal prosecutions, discovery rights originate from a number of important Supreme Court decisions and statutes, the most important of which are,
1228:
1247:
because from their perspective, the result amounts to "a private inquisition." Civil law countries see the underlying objectives of discovery as properly
1187:
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
2936:
Mullenix, Linda S. (July 1994). "Discovery in Disarray: The Pervasive Myth of Pervasive Discovery Abuse and the Consequences for Unfounded Rulemaking".
1433:
1010:
countries. In the United States, discovery is mostly performed by the litigating parties themselves, with relatively minimal judicial oversight. The
986:
1279:, provides the defence with relevant information discovered during the course of a criminal investigation. The disclosure process helps protect the
1142:
709:" without sufficient time for reflection or deliberation, thereby causing them to "misrepresent facts, from infirmity of recollection or mistake".
383:
1003:
998:
903:
876:
In a typical collection process large volumes of data are transmitted across the network for indexing and this impacts normal business operations
769:
The next major development (which would remain a unique feature of American and Canadian discovery) occurred under the supervision of Chancellor
761:, including the tradition of having courts of equity appoint masters to take depositions. It is this quasi-inquisitorial procedure to which the
1291:
1194:
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
609:
discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.
2290:
Reimann, Mathias (2003). "Liability for Defective Products at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: Emergence of a Worldwide Standard".
534:
2559:
3217:
3165:
2790:
926:
and during trial with objections.) Certain types of information are generally protected from discovery; these include information which is
2907:
1015:
920:
relevant, rather than evidence which is truly relevant. (Issues of the scope of relevance are taken care of before trial with motions
1397:
and digital information. These balance the rights to privacy of victims and witnesses with the right to fair trial for defendants.
527:
2855:
1548:
1243:
strongly dislike and oppose American discovery: they regard broad discovery in the hands of private parties as destructive of the
2654:
2528:
1123:
The formal discovery process for federal criminal prosecutions is outlined in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16.
1502:
787:
2917:
2924:
Faced with grinding discovery demands that distract employees from operating the business, even blameless defendants settle.
3180:
1267:
The discovery process in England and Wales is known as 'disclosure'. This process occurs in both civil and criminal cases.
885:
The number of concurrent custodian machines that can be processed is severely limited due to the network bandwidth required
815:
31:
1448:
2475:
2292:
1284:
422:
1961:
1043:
834:
779:
471:
1447:
A mandatory disclosure pilot was introduced on 1 January 2019 for use in relation to a range of claims handled by the
3033:
2996:
2370:
2340:
2267:
2230:
2196:
2062:
2007:
1921:
1884:
1846:
1809:
1772:
1736:
1699:
1644:
944:
476:
191:
1359:(a) setting out the nature of the accused's defence, including any particular defences on which he intends to rely,
3234:
1207:
most cases, and exaggeration of American litigiousness and its cost result in confusion within the justice system.
1026:
1011:
907:
826:
810:
427:
42:
3184:
1962:"Our Inquisitorial Tradition: Equity Procedure, Due Process, and the Search for an Alternative to the Adversarial"
754:—thereby leaving the chancellors no choice but to delegate factfinding procedures like the taking of depositions.
605:. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a
3258:
1368:(ca) setting out particulars of the matters of fact on which he intends to rely for the purposes of his defence,
838:
more methods of discovery, no one state nor the federal government had ever attempted to allow litigators to use
1255:, and insofar as discovery may be able to facilitate the creation of new rights, that is the prerogative of the
1424:, which have their own additional parts of procedure rules to follow) disclosure is governed by Part 31 of the
747:
1311:(b) give to the accused a written statement that there is no material of a description mentioned in paragraph
73:
2086:
1014:
guide discovery in the U.S. federal court system. Most state courts follow a similar version based upon the
1063:
432:
47:
3263:
1251:
in order to maintain the rule of law: the investigative objective of discovery is the prerogative of the
417:
68:
818:
merged together various trial courts, including the Court of Chancery, to form what is now known as the
2434:
774:
182:
2690:"Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery"
1471:
1276:
672:
at least 14 days before the date of the examination. In London, the examinations took place before a
669:
121:
84:
2427:
750:
as cheaply as possible—by leaving it severely understaffed in comparison to its counterparts on the
3253:
1240:
1034:
913:
2970:
1098:
also applies to evidence that would mitigate the defendant's sentence if a defendant is convicted.
2571:
1110:
1102:
863:
Currently the two main approaches for identifying responsive material on custodian machines are:
345:
809:
In England, discovery finally became available in the common law courts by the mid-1850s, after
2500:
Hawkins, Kenneth B. (December 1953). "Discovery and Rule 34: What's So Wrong About Surprise?".
2054:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1913:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1876:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1728:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1691:
Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture, 1800-1877
1252:
1075:
1071:
1059:
1055:
981:
tangible evidence, and for any reports prepared by expert witnesses who will testify at trial.
762:
594:
590:
306:
301:
78:
3023:
2888:
2360:
2087:"David Dudley Field and the Field Code: A Historical Analysis of an Earlier Procedural Vision"
2030:
1997:
1634:
1290:
The test for what information should be provided during disclosure is set by section 3 of the
2986:
2414:
2328:
2257:
2052:
1911:
1874:
1834:
1797:
1760:
1726:
1689:
1460:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1280:
931:
882:
IT administrators are generally unhappy with the installation of agents on custodian machines
819:
799:
633:(which influenced Chancery procedure) had originated with "the practice of the courts of the
401:
338:
101:
2890:
Double Billing: A Young Lawyer's Tale of Greed, Sex, Lies, and the Pursuit of a Swivel Chair
2220:
2186:
2156:"Fishing Expeditions Allowed: The Historical Background of the 1938 Federal Discovery Rules"
1478:
1465:
1365:(c) setting out, in the case of each such matter, why he takes issue with the prosecution,
1078:
are exchanged between the parties and not filed with the court. Parties, however, can file
989:
rights, specifically the defendant's constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
936:
927:
855:
783:
757:
Despite these defects, English settlers brought discovery and depositions with them to the
731:
723:
482:
150:
89:
3152:
2826:
8:
3086:
1498:
1195:
770:
634:
333:
238:
212:
114:
2407:"Method and system for searching for, and collecting, electronically-stored information"
684:. Once agreed upon, the court would grant them authority to examine witnesses by way of
2982:
2953:
2903:
2509:
2356:
2309:
2253:
2125:
2117:
1966:
1604:
1410:
830:
751:
727:
685:
673:
283:
253:
218:
20:
3029:
2992:
2913:
2716:"18 U.S. Code § 3500 - Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses"
2366:
2336:
2333:
Managing Records in Global Financial Markets: Ensuring Compliance and Mitigating Risk
2263:
2226:
2192:
2129:
2058:
2003:
1993:
1917:
1880:
1842:
1805:
1768:
1732:
1695:
1640:
1630:
1608:
1188:
1090:
968:
758:
739:
706:
622:
467:
3238:
2594:
2394:
Windows forensics: The field guide for conducting corporate computer investigations.
1519:
1019:
2945:
2627:
2457:
2301:
2109:
2101:
1596:
1079:
1047:
956:
952:
940:
921:
652:(1558–1603) and the late seventeenth century, positions were gradually replaced by
606:
598:
328:
323:
293:
2715:
1409:
has been known as "disclosure" since the reforms to civil procedure introduced by
1341:
encounter material which points away from the suspect and is in turn disclosable.
3204:
2689:
2450:"ISEEK, a tool for high speed, concurrent, distributed forensic data acquisition"
2409:. Elliot Spencer, Samuel J. Baker, Erik Andersen, Perlustro LP. 25 November 2009.
1839:
Remembering Protest in Britain since 1500: Memory, Materiality, and the Landscape
1802:
Remembering Protest in Britain since 1500: Memory, Materiality, and the Landscape
1765:
Remembering Protest in Britain since 1500: Memory, Materiality, and the Landscape
1417:
1362:(b) indicating the matters of fact on which he takes issue with the prosecution,
1215:
1067:
1051:
718:
653:
586:
578:
288:
177:
144:
2791:"California Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 2030.030. Propounding Interrogatories"
2461:
2048:
1957:
1907:
1870:
1722:
1685:
1600:
1248:
1232:
582:
558:
Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990–2006
412:
258:
3198:
Practice Direction 51U - Disclosure Pilot for the Business and Property Courts
2406:
1999:
The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts
1636:
The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians, and Courts
1356:(1) For the purposes of this Part a defence statement is a written statement—
3247:
1275:
Criminal disclosure is the process by which the Crown, typically through the
681:
677:
437:
2331:. In Coleman, Lynn; Lemieux, Victoria L.; Stone, Rod; Yeo, Geoffrey (eds.).
1432:
and cost-effective manner". As in the United States, certain documents are
618:
452:
268:
248:
223:
208:
187:
56:
2113:
3153:"Bater-James & Anor v R. [2020] EWCA Crim 790 (23 June 2020)"
2988:
Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation
2362:
Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation
2259:
Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution Against Federal Litigation
1406:
1256:
1244:
1223:
1203:
977:
649:
365:
135:
107:
2628:"Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection"
2513:
2029:
An Act to Amend the Judicial System of the United States, ch. 31, § 25,
879:
The indexing process is not 100% reliable in finding responsive material
2971:
Nora Freeman Engstrom, The Lessons of Lone Pine, 129 Yale L.J. 2 (2019)
2957:
2313:
1614:
1007:
973:
701:
570:
513:
457:
228:
2121:
1145:
to provide uniform process when discovery is to be done out of state.
1211:
1038:
1030:
697:
693:
638:
637:
in the early thirteenth century". Although canonists also looked to
630:
554:
394:
375:
370:
243:
172:
2949:
2305:
2105:
1214:
cases, some courts may grant a defendant's pre-trial request for a
963:
602:
506:
203:
160:
976:
is obligated to provide to the defendant any information that is
735:
574:
462:
233:
16:
Pretrial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence
2449:
1549:"The Federal Rules, the Adversary Process, and Discovery Reform"
734:. The secrecy was thought to be absolutely essential to prevent
3025:
Failures of American Civil Justice in International Perspective
495:
2655:"Criminal Discovery - The Circuitous Road to a Two-Way Street"
1639:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 158, fn. 117.
1235:, rather than dovetailing their claims with other plaintiffs.
939:
or "e-discovery" refers to discovery of information stored in
2476:"Self-Collection In E-Discovery — Risks Vs. Rewards - Law360"
355:
2595:"Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990-2006"
1520:"Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990–2006"
872:
In relation to the first approach there are several issues:
585:
from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as
3185:
PRACTICE DIRECTION 31B – DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
2529:"Motions in Limine in Employment Discrimination Litigation"
1587:
Goldstein, Alan K. (1981). "A Short History of Discovery".
389:
3187:, last updated 1 October 2020, accessed 11 September 2022
1501:
from judicial opinions or other documents created by the
566:
2909:
Second-Best Justice: The Virtues of Japanese Private Law
2329:"Chapter 2: Conflicts of laws in multiple jurisdictions"
2225:(4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 9.
2191:(4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. p. 8.
1841:. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 81–106.
1804:. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 81–106.
1767:. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. pp. 81–106.
3028:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 151.
2365:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 124.
1328:
The Attorney General's Disclosure Guidelines provide:
2991:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 70.
2448:
Richard, Adams; Graham, Mann; Valerie, Hobbs (2017).
2262:. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 69.
2002:. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 159.
959:, which eliminates the expense and risks of a trial.
573:
jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a
3017:
3015:
2593:
Kyckelhahn, Tracey; Cohen, Thomas H. (August 2008).
2447:
1518:
Kyckelhahn, Tracey; Cohen, Thomas H. (August 2008).
2043:
2041:
2039:
1625:
1623:
617:Discovery evolved out of a unique feature of early
601:. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using
3207:, updated 1 October 2018, accessed 28 January 2021
3140:End to end rape review report with correction slip
1436:, such as letters between solicitors and experts.
1338:The Attorney General's Disclosure Guidelines 2020
3012:
2057:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 103.
1986:
1680:
1678:
3245:
3087:"Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996"
3056:
3054:
3052:
2036:
1916:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 29.
1879:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 28.
1837:. In Griffin, Carl J.; McDonagh, Briony (eds.).
1800:. In Griffin, Carl J.; McDonagh, Briony (eds.).
1763:. In Griffin, Carl J.; McDonagh, Briony (eds.).
1731:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 92.
1694:. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 25.
1620:
1143:Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act
846:FRCP that went into effect on December 1, 2015.
3218:"English court disclosure pilot made permanent"
2592:
2349:
2212:
2178:
1900:
1863:
1517:
999:Civil discovery under United States federal law
904:Civil discovery under United States federal law
2981:
2975:
2355:
2320:
2252:
2246:
1826:
1715:
1675:
1385:based on a clear set of pre-existing reasons.
1292:Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
3062:"Attorney General's Guidelines on Disclosure"
3049:
2856:"Discovery Abuse: Appointing Special Masters"
2218:
2184:
1789:
1752:
1660:
1405:The discovery process in the jurisdiction of
535:
2912:. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2335:. London: Facet Publishing. pp. 17–32.
2283:
1671:. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 237–242.
2883:
2881:
1582:
1580:
1578:
1576:
1574:
790:to conduct oral examinations of witnesses.
2893:(New York: William Morrow, 1998), 125–126.
2149:
2147:
2145:
2143:
2141:
2139:
1952:
1950:
1948:
1946:
1944:
1942:
1940:
1546:
542:
528:
2684:
2682:
2680:
2621:
2619:
1860:At p. 85. Available through SpringerLink.
1823:At p. 87. Available through SpringerLink.
1786:At p. 86. Available through SpringerLink.
1586:
3176:
3174:
3021:
2935:
2902:
2878:
1992:
1629:
1571:
1442:Peruvian Guano v Financiaso Compagneiage
1114:, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and the resulting
577:in which each party, through the law of
553:
2659:University of San Francisco Law Journal
2499:
2326:
2293:The American Journal of Comparative Law
2289:
2136:
2047:
1956:
1937:
1906:
1869:
1721:
1684:
1375:
1350:Contents of the Defence Case Statement
1126:
849:
3246:
2696:. Cornell Law School. 30 November 2011
2677:
2634:. Cornell Law School. 30 November 2011
2616:
2526:
2153:
2084:
2078:
1832:
1795:
1758:
1503:federal judiciary of the United States
1270:
621:pleading procedure before the English
3171:
3128:Decriminalisation of Rape Report 2020
2557:
2219:Matthews, Paul; Malek, Hodge (2012).
2185:Matthews, Paul; Malek, Hodge (2012).
1666:
1444:(1881) 10 EWR 125) and linkage test.
1221:, which requires a plaintiff to show
726:(i.e., driven by the court), and not
2853:
2652:
1262:
816:Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873
786:to allow masters in equity suits in
591:requests for production of documents
2558:Kelly, Robert L. (September 2007).
2396:Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.
1835:"Relating Early Modern Depositions"
1798:"Relating Early Modern Depositions"
1761:"Relating Early Modern Depositions"
1553:University of Pittsburgh Law Review
1400:
1285:European Convention on Human Rights
1210:To weed out spurious plaintiffs in
966:cases. Under the rule set forth in
648:At some point between the reign of
13:
2795:California Legislative Information
2746:California Legislative Information
2085:Subrin, Stephen N. (Autumn 1988).
14:
3275:
3228:
1669:The Elizabethan Court of Chancery
1353:6A Contents of defence statement
945:Electronically Stored Information
825:In 1938, the promulgation of the
3235:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
2827:"Form Interrogatories - General"
2815:Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060
2767:Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.010
2533:University of Memphis Law Review
2502:American Bar Association Journal
1490:
1027:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1020:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1012:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
908:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
897:
827:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
43:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
3210:
3190:
3159:
3145:
3133:
3121:
3112:
3100:
3079:
2964:
2929:
2896:
2847:
2818:
2809:
2783:
2771:
2760:
2734:
2708:
2646:
2586:
2551:
2520:
2493:
2468:
2441:
2399:
2386:
2154:Subrin, Stephen N. (May 1998).
2023:
1547:Schwarzner, William W. (1988).
962:Discovery is also available in
3130:endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk
2797:. California State Legislature
2748:. California State Legislature
2560:"The Tech Side of E-Discovery"
1540:
1511:
1037:between the parties after the
1018:"Depositions & Discovery"
1004:Discovery in the United States
992:
748:judiciary of England and Wales
428:Notwithstanding verdict (JNOV)
1:
1485:
1300:The CPIA 1996 Disclosure Test
1164:
2780:, 54 Cal.2d 318, 325 (1960).
2604:. U.S. Department of Justice
2602:Bureau of Justice Statistics
1449:Business and Property Courts
1182:
1135:
1062:of documents (RFP). In most
1006:is unique compared to other
645:were unknown to the Romans.
48:Doctrines of civil procedure
7:
3022:Maxeiner, James R. (2011).
2720:Legal Information Institute
2694:Legal Information Institute
2632:Legal Information Institute
2527:Warner, Charles C. (1998).
1454:
10:
3280:
1601:10.1177/147377958101000404
1527:U.S. Department of Justice
1497:This article incorporates
1066:, the formal requests for
996:
901:
853:
775:New York Court of Chancery
612:
183:Case Information Statement
18:
3239:Depositions and Discovery
2160:Boston College Law Review
1589:Anglo-American Law Review
1472:subpoena ad testificandum
1277:Crown Prosecution Service
1196:multi-level playing field
1148:
670:subpoena ad testificandum
418:As a matter of law (JMOL)
2985:; Farhang, Sean (2017).
2653:Kane, Robert F. (1972).
2462:10.4225/75/5a838d3b1d27f
2359:; Farhang, Sean (2017).
2256:; Farhang, Sean (2017).
1833:Falvey, Heather (2018).
1796:Falvey, Heather (2018).
1759:Falvey, Heather (2018).
1305:(1)The prosecutor must—
1249:monopolized by the state
914:law of the United States
829:(FRCP) (pursuant to the
315:Resolution without trial
19:Not to be confused with
2854:Lord, Miles W. (1986).
1227:evidence of injury and
1111:Giglio v. United States
1103:Jencks v. United States
1064:federal district courts
595:requests for admissions
3259:Information governance
2422:Cite journal requires
2094:Law and History Review
1499:public domain material
1422:personal injury claims
1373:
1347:
1323:
1076:request for production
1072:request for admissions
1060:request for production
1056:request for admissions
943:(often referred to as
763:United States Congress
559:
307:Request for production
302:Request for admissions
3196:Ministry of Justice,
3118:Section 6A CPIA 1996.
2742:"Civil Discovery Act"
1461:Early case assessment
1426:Civil Procedure Rules
1420:(but not for example
1348:
1330:
1296:
1281:right to a fair trial
1035:initiate a conference
820:High Court of Justice
800:David Dudley Field II
732:ecclesiastical courts
557:
340:Involuntary dismissal
2722:. Cornell Law School
2574:on 30 September 2017
2327:Sautter, Ed (2011).
1667:Jones, W.J. (1967).
1479:subpoena duces tecum
1376:Third party material
1127:District of Columbia
937:Electronic discovery
856:Electronic discovery
850:Electronic discovery
784:Federal Equity Rules
483:Declaratory judgment
151:Forum non conveniens
34:in the United States
3181:Ministry of Justice
2983:Burbank, Stephen B.
2938:Stanford Law Review
2570:(1). Archived from
2433:CS1 maint: others (
2357:Burbank, Stephen B.
2254:Burbank, Stephen B.
1318:Section 3 CPIA 1996
1271:Criminal disclosure
1241:civil law countries
1044:initial disclosures
712:This procedure for
433:Motion to set aside
334:Voluntary dismissal
239:Indispensable party
213:affirmative defense
3264:Records management
3203:2021-01-21 at the
3142:British Government
3109:British Government
2887:Cameron Stracher,
2860:Hamline Law Review
2778:Singer v. Sup. Ct.
2564:Business Law Today
2049:Kessler, Amalia D.
1994:Brundage, James A.
1967:Cornell Law Review
1908:Kessler, Amalia D.
1871:Kessler, Amalia D.
1723:Kessler, Amalia D.
1686:Kessler, Amalia D.
1631:Brundage, James A.
1613:Available through
1416:For many types of
1411:Lord Justice Woolf
1257:legislative branch
1229:specific causation
831:Rules Enabling Act
780:U.S. Supreme Court
752:European continent
686:dedimus potestatem
676:or an examiner in
560:
284:Initial conference
269:Pretrial procedure
21:Discovery doctrine
2919:978-0-226-28199-5
2904:Ramseyer, J. Mark
2834:California Courts
2508:(12): 1075–1079.
2392:Steel, C (2006).
1407:England and Wales
1263:England and Wales
1155:Brady v. Maryland
1091:Brady v. Maryland
1025:According to the
969:Brady v. Maryland
941:electronic format
759:Thirteen Colonies
740:witness tampering
707:cross-examination
682:country gentlemen
623:Court of Chancery
552:
551:
3271:
3222:
3221:
3214:
3208:
3194:
3188:
3178:
3169:
3163:
3157:
3156:
3149:
3143:
3137:
3131:
3125:
3119:
3116:
3110:
3107:Code of practice
3104:
3098:
3097:
3095:
3093:
3083:
3077:
3076:
3074:
3072:
3066:
3058:
3047:
3046:
3044:
3042:
3019:
3010:
3009:
3007:
3005:
2979:
2973:
2968:
2962:
2961:
2944:(6): 1393–1445.
2933:
2927:
2926:
2900:
2894:
2885:
2876:
2875:
2873:
2871:
2851:
2845:
2844:
2842:
2840:
2831:
2822:
2816:
2813:
2807:
2806:
2804:
2802:
2787:
2781:
2775:
2769:
2764:
2758:
2757:
2755:
2753:
2738:
2732:
2731:
2729:
2727:
2712:
2706:
2705:
2703:
2701:
2686:
2675:
2674:
2672:
2670:
2650:
2644:
2643:
2641:
2639:
2623:
2614:
2613:
2611:
2609:
2599:
2590:
2584:
2583:
2581:
2579:
2555:
2549:
2548:
2546:
2544:
2524:
2518:
2517:
2497:
2491:
2490:
2488:
2486:
2472:
2466:
2465:
2445:
2439:
2438:
2431:
2425:
2420:
2418:
2410:
2403:
2397:
2390:
2384:
2383:
2381:
2379:
2353:
2347:
2346:
2324:
2318:
2317:
2287:
2281:
2280:
2278:
2276:
2250:
2244:
2243:
2241:
2239:
2216:
2210:
2209:
2207:
2205:
2182:
2176:
2175:
2173:
2171:
2151:
2134:
2133:
2091:
2082:
2076:
2075:
2073:
2071:
2045:
2034:
2031:2 Stat. 156, 166
2027:
2021:
2020:
2018:
2016:
1990:
1984:
1983:
1981:
1979:
1954:
1935:
1934:
1932:
1930:
1904:
1898:
1897:
1895:
1893:
1867:
1861:
1859:
1857:
1855:
1830:
1824:
1822:
1820:
1818:
1793:
1787:
1785:
1783:
1781:
1756:
1750:
1749:
1747:
1745:
1719:
1713:
1712:
1710:
1708:
1682:
1673:
1672:
1664:
1658:
1657:
1655:
1653:
1627:
1618:
1612:
1584:
1569:
1568:
1566:
1564:
1544:
1538:
1537:
1535:
1533:
1524:
1515:
1494:
1493:
1401:Civil disclosure
1345:
1319:
1253:executive branch
1189:war of attrition
1080:motion to compel
957:summary judgment
814:discovery. The
635:Italian communes
607:motion to compel
544:
537:
530:
341:
329:Summary judgment
324:Default judgment
74:Federal question
28:
27:
3279:
3278:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3254:Discovery (law)
3244:
3243:
3231:
3226:
3225:
3216:
3215:
3211:
3205:Wayback Machine
3195:
3191:
3179:
3172:
3164:
3160:
3151:
3150:
3146:
3138:
3134:
3126:
3122:
3117:
3113:
3105:
3101:
3091:
3089:
3085:
3084:
3080:
3070:
3068:
3064:
3060:
3059:
3050:
3040:
3038:
3036:
3020:
3013:
3003:
3001:
2999:
2980:
2976:
2969:
2965:
2950:10.2307/1229162
2934:
2930:
2920:
2901:
2897:
2886:
2879:
2869:
2867:
2852:
2848:
2838:
2836:
2829:
2825:
2823:
2819:
2814:
2810:
2800:
2798:
2789:
2788:
2784:
2776:
2772:
2765:
2761:
2751:
2749:
2740:
2739:
2735:
2725:
2723:
2714:
2713:
2709:
2699:
2697:
2688:
2687:
2678:
2668:
2666:
2651:
2647:
2637:
2635:
2626:
2624:
2617:
2607:
2605:
2597:
2591:
2587:
2577:
2575:
2556:
2552:
2542:
2540:
2525:
2521:
2498:
2494:
2484:
2482:
2474:
2473:
2469:
2454:Research Online
2446:
2442:
2432:
2423:
2421:
2412:
2411:
2405:
2404:
2400:
2391:
2387:
2377:
2375:
2373:
2354:
2350:
2343:
2325:
2321:
2306:10.2307/3649130
2288:
2284:
2274:
2272:
2270:
2251:
2247:
2237:
2235:
2233:
2217:
2213:
2203:
2201:
2199:
2183:
2179:
2169:
2167:
2152:
2137:
2089:
2083:
2079:
2069:
2067:
2065:
2046:
2037:
2028:
2024:
2014:
2012:
2010:
1991:
1987:
1977:
1975:
1958:Kessler, Amalia
1955:
1938:
1928:
1926:
1924:
1905:
1901:
1891:
1889:
1887:
1868:
1864:
1853:
1851:
1849:
1831:
1827:
1816:
1814:
1812:
1794:
1790:
1779:
1777:
1775:
1757:
1753:
1743:
1741:
1739:
1720:
1716:
1706:
1704:
1702:
1683:
1676:
1665:
1661:
1651:
1649:
1647:
1628:
1621:
1585:
1572:
1562:
1560:
1545:
1541:
1531:
1529:
1522:
1516:
1512:
1491:
1488:
1457:
1418:cause of action
1403:
1378:
1346:
1337:
1320:
1317:
1273:
1265:
1233:expert's report
1185:
1167:
1151:
1138:
1129:
1068:interrogatories
1052:interrogatories
1016:FRCP, Chapter V
1001:
995:
987:Fifth Amendment
910:
900:
858:
852:
719:Lord Chancellor
654:interrogatories
615:
587:interrogatories
579:civil procedure
548:
519:
488:
455:
446:
415:
406:
402:Burden of proof
350:
339:
298:
289:Interrogatories
263:
197:
178:Cause of action
175:
145:Change of venue
128:
104:
95:
83:
71:
33:
32:Civil procedure
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
3277:
3267:
3266:
3261:
3256:
3242:
3241:
3230:
3229:External links
3227:
3224:
3223:
3209:
3189:
3170:
3158:
3144:
3132:
3120:
3111:
3099:
3078:
3048:
3034:
3011:
2997:
2974:
2963:
2928:
2918:
2895:
2877:
2846:
2817:
2808:
2782:
2770:
2759:
2733:
2707:
2676:
2645:
2615:
2585:
2550:
2519:
2492:
2480:www.law360.com
2467:
2440:
2424:|journal=
2398:
2385:
2371:
2348:
2341:
2319:
2300:(4): 751–838.
2282:
2268:
2245:
2231:
2211:
2197:
2177:
2135:
2114:2047/d20002460
2106:10.2307/743686
2100:(2): 311–373.
2077:
2063:
2035:
2022:
2008:
1985:
1974:(5): 1181–1276
1936:
1922:
1899:
1885:
1862:
1847:
1825:
1810:
1788:
1773:
1751:
1737:
1714:
1700:
1674:
1659:
1645:
1619:
1595:(4): 257–270.
1570:
1539:
1509:
1508:
1487:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1475:
1468:
1466:Second request
1463:
1456:
1453:
1402:
1399:
1377:
1374:
1335:
1315:
1272:
1269:
1264:
1261:
1184:
1181:
1166:
1163:
1150:
1147:
1137:
1134:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1107:
1099:
997:Main article:
994:
991:
899:
896:
887:
886:
883:
880:
877:
854:Main article:
851:
848:
788:federal courts
614:
611:
550:
549:
547:
546:
539:
532:
524:
521:
520:
518:
517:
510:
502:
499:
498:
492:
491:
490:
489:
487:
486:
480:
474:
468:Attorney's fee
465:
460:
449:
447:
445:
444:
435:
430:
425:
420:
409:
405:
404:
399:
387:
380:
379:
378:
373:
362:
359:
358:
352:
351:
349:
348:
343:
336:
331:
326:
320:
317:
316:
312:
311:
310:
309:
304:
297:
296:
291:
286:
281:
275:
272:
271:
265:
264:
262:
261:
256:
251:
246:
241:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
206:
200:
199:
198:
196:
195:
185:
180:
169:
164:
163:
157:
156:
155:
154:
147:
139:
138:
132:
131:
130:
129:
127:
126:
118:
111:
98:
96:
94:
93:
87:
81:
76:
69:Subject-matter
65:
60:
59:
53:
52:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3276:
3265:
3262:
3260:
3257:
3255:
3252:
3251:
3249:
3240:
3236:
3233:
3232:
3219:
3213:
3206:
3202:
3199:
3193:
3186:
3182:
3177:
3175:
3167:
3162:
3154:
3148:
3141:
3136:
3129:
3124:
3115:
3108:
3103:
3088:
3082:
3063:
3057:
3055:
3053:
3037:
3035:9781139504898
3031:
3027:
3026:
3018:
3016:
3000:
2998:9781107136991
2994:
2990:
2989:
2984:
2978:
2972:
2967:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2939:
2932:
2925:
2921:
2915:
2911:
2910:
2905:
2899:
2892:
2891:
2884:
2882:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2850:
2835:
2828:
2821:
2812:
2796:
2792:
2786:
2779:
2774:
2768:
2763:
2747:
2743:
2737:
2721:
2717:
2711:
2695:
2691:
2685:
2683:
2681:
2664:
2660:
2656:
2649:
2633:
2629:
2622:
2620:
2603:
2596:
2589:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2554:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2523:
2515:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2496:
2481:
2477:
2471:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2444:
2436:
2429:
2416:
2408:
2402:
2395:
2389:
2374:
2372:9781107136991
2368:
2364:
2363:
2358:
2352:
2344:
2342:9781856046633
2338:
2334:
2330:
2323:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2294:
2286:
2271:
2269:9781107136991
2265:
2261:
2260:
2255:
2249:
2234:
2232:9780414047792
2228:
2224:
2223:
2215:
2200:
2198:9780414047792
2194:
2190:
2189:
2181:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2150:
2148:
2146:
2144:
2142:
2140:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2088:
2081:
2066:
2064:9780300222258
2060:
2056:
2055:
2050:
2044:
2042:
2040:
2032:
2026:
2011:
2009:9780226077611
2005:
2001:
2000:
1995:
1989:
1973:
1969:
1968:
1963:
1960:(July 2005).
1959:
1953:
1951:
1949:
1947:
1945:
1943:
1941:
1925:
1923:9780300222258
1919:
1915:
1914:
1909:
1903:
1888:
1886:9780300222258
1882:
1878:
1877:
1872:
1866:
1850:
1848:9783319742434
1844:
1840:
1836:
1829:
1813:
1811:9783319742434
1807:
1803:
1799:
1792:
1776:
1774:9783319742434
1770:
1766:
1762:
1755:
1740:
1738:9780300222258
1734:
1730:
1729:
1724:
1718:
1703:
1701:9780300222258
1697:
1693:
1692:
1687:
1681:
1679:
1670:
1663:
1648:
1646:9780226077611
1642:
1638:
1637:
1632:
1626:
1624:
1616:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1583:
1581:
1579:
1577:
1575:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1543:
1528:
1521:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1506:
1504:
1500:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1458:
1452:
1450:
1445:
1443:
1437:
1435:
1431:
1430:proportionate
1427:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1342:
1334:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1295:
1293:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1268:
1260:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1220:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1192:
1190:
1180:
1177:
1171:
1162:
1158:
1156:
1146:
1144:
1133:
1124:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
990:
988:
982:
979:
975:
971:
970:
965:
960:
958:
954:
948:
946:
942:
938:
933:
929:
925:
924:
919:
915:
909:
905:
898:United States
895:
891:
884:
881:
878:
875:
874:
873:
870:
867:
864:
861:
857:
847:
843:
841:
836:
832:
828:
823:
821:
817:
812:
807:
803:
801:
795:
791:
789:
785:
781:
776:
772:
767:
764:
760:
755:
753:
749:
743:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:inquisitorial
720:
715:
710:
708:
703:
699:
695:
689:
687:
683:
679:
678:Chancery Lane
675:
671:
665:
661:
659:
655:
651:
646:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
610:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:, can obtain
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
556:
545:
540:
538:
533:
531:
526:
525:
523:
522:
516:
515:
511:
509:
508:
504:
503:
501:
500:
497:
494:
493:
484:
481:
478:
475:
473:
472:American rule
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
454:
451:
450:
448:
442:
440:
436:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
414:
411:
410:
408:
407:
403:
400:
397:
396:
391:
388:
386:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
368:
367:
364:
363:
361:
360:
357:
354:
353:
347:
344:
342:
337:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
321:
319:
318:
314:
313:
308:
305:
303:
300:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
280:
277:
276:
274:
273:
270:
267:
266:
260:
259:Other motions
257:
255:
252:
250:
247:
245:
242:
240:
237:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
214:
210:
207:
205:
202:
201:
193:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
174:
171:
170:
168:
167:
166:
165:
162:
159:
158:
153:
152:
148:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
134:
133:
124:
123:
119:
117:
116:
112:
110:
109:
103:
100:
99:
97:
91:
88:
86:
82:
80:
77:
75:
70:
67:
66:
64:
63:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
39:
38:
35:
30:
29:
26:
22:
3212:
3192:
3161:
3147:
3135:
3123:
3114:
3102:
3090:. Retrieved
3081:
3069:. Retrieved
3039:. Retrieved
3024:
3002:. Retrieved
2987:
2977:
2966:
2941:
2937:
2931:
2923:
2908:
2898:
2889:
2870:30 September
2868:. Retrieved
2863:
2859:
2849:
2839:30 September
2837:. Retrieved
2833:
2820:
2811:
2801:30 September
2799:. Retrieved
2794:
2785:
2777:
2773:
2766:
2762:
2752:30 September
2750:. Retrieved
2745:
2736:
2726:30 September
2724:. Retrieved
2719:
2710:
2700:30 September
2698:. Retrieved
2693:
2669:30 September
2667:. Retrieved
2662:
2658:
2648:
2638:30 September
2636:. Retrieved
2631:
2608:30 September
2606:. Retrieved
2601:
2588:
2578:30 September
2576:. Retrieved
2572:the original
2567:
2563:
2553:
2543:30 September
2541:. Retrieved
2536:
2532:
2522:
2505:
2501:
2495:
2483:. Retrieved
2479:
2470:
2453:
2443:
2415:cite journal
2401:
2393:
2388:
2376:. Retrieved
2361:
2351:
2332:
2322:
2297:
2291:
2285:
2273:. Retrieved
2258:
2248:
2236:. Retrieved
2221:
2214:
2202:. Retrieved
2187:
2180:
2168:. Retrieved
2166:(3): 691–745
2163:
2159:
2097:
2093:
2080:
2068:. Retrieved
2053:
2025:
2013:. Retrieved
1998:
1988:
1976:. Retrieved
1971:
1965:
1927:. Retrieved
1912:
1902:
1890:. Retrieved
1875:
1865:
1852:. Retrieved
1838:
1828:
1815:. Retrieved
1801:
1791:
1778:. Retrieved
1764:
1754:
1742:. Retrieved
1727:
1717:
1705:. Retrieved
1690:
1668:
1662:
1650:. Retrieved
1635:
1592:
1588:
1563:30 September
1561:. Retrieved
1556:
1552:
1542:
1532:30 September
1530:. Retrieved
1526:
1513:
1496:
1489:
1477:
1470:
1446:
1441:
1438:
1415:
1404:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1339:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1289:
1274:
1266:
1237:
1222:
1216:
1209:
1201:
1193:
1186:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1159:
1154:
1152:
1139:
1130:
1122:
1115:
1109:
1101:
1095:
1089:
1084:
1024:
1002:
985:defendant's
983:
967:
961:
949:
932:work product
922:
917:
911:
892:
888:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
844:
839:
824:
808:
804:
796:
792:
782:amended the
768:
756:
744:
713:
711:
690:
666:
662:
657:
647:
642:
626:
616:
562:
561:
512:
505:
477:English rule
438:
423:Renewed JMOL
393:
382:
278:
254:Intervention
249:Interpleader
224:Counterclaim
188:Class action
149:
122:Quasi in rem
120:
113:
106:
85:Supplemental
57:Jurisdiction
25:
2625:See, e.g.,
2015:12 December
1652:12 December
1245:rule of law
1224:prima facie
1204:tort reform
1048:depositions
993:Federal law
978:exculpatory
947:, or ESI).
835:progressive
728:adversarial
650:Elizabeth I
599:depositions
441:(new trial)
294:Depositions
108:In personam
3248:Categories
3168:ico.org.uk
3166:ICO report
2824:See e.g.,
2238:5 December
2222:Disclosure
2204:5 December
2188:Disclosure
2070:3 December
1929:24 October
1892:24 October
1854:24 October
1817:24 October
1780:24 October
1744:24 October
1707:24 October
1615:HeinOnline
1486:References
1434:privileged
1165:California
1058:(RFA) and
1008:common law
974:prosecutor
953:settlement
928:privileged
912:Under the
902:See also:
811:Parliament
771:James Kent
702:Whittlesey
658:initiating
643:positiones
627:positiones
571:common law
514:Certiorari
458:Injunction
346:Settlement
229:Crossclaim
3071:28 August
2130:145512997
1609:184613750
1413:in 1999.
1217:Lone Pine
1212:mass tort
1183:Criticism
1136:State law
1039:complaint
1031:plaintiff
923:in limine
698:enclosure
694:narrative
639:Roman law
631:canon law
619:equitable
603:subpoenas
565:, in the
563:Discovery
395:voir dire
376:defendant
371:plaintiff
279:Discovery
244:Impleader
173:Complaint
161:Pleadings
79:Diversity
3201:Archived
2906:(2015).
2514:25718642
2485:10 March
2051:(2017).
1996:(2008).
1978:15 April
1910:(2017).
1873:(2017).
1725:(2017).
1688:(2017).
1633:(2008).
1455:See also
1336:—
1316:—
1287:(ECHR).
1119:process.
964:criminal
930:and the
918:might be
714:ex parte
700:riot in
583:evidence
507:Mandamus
413:Judgment
204:Demurrer
194:) )
192:2005 Act
102:Personal
3092:14 June
3004:12 July
2958:1229162
2378:12 July
2314:3649130
2275:12 July
2170:23 June
2033:(1802).
1231:via an
773:of the
736:perjury
613:History
575:lawsuit
463:Damages
443: )
439:De novo
392: (
366:Parties
234:Joinder
211: (
190: (
90:Removal
3067:. 2020
3041:9 June
3032:
2995:
2956:
2916:
2512:
2369:
2339:
2312:
2266:
2229:
2195:
2128:
2122:743686
2120:
2061:
2006:
1920:
1883:
1845:
1808:
1771:
1735:
1698:
1643:
1607:
1495:
1344:trial.
1149:Alaska
1116:Giglio
1029:, the
972:, the
674:master
496:Appeal
453:Remedy
384:Pro se
209:Answer
115:In rem
3065:(PDF)
2954:JSTOR
2830:(PDF)
2665:: 203
2598:(PDF)
2539:: 823
2510:JSTOR
2310:JSTOR
2126:S2CID
2118:JSTOR
2090:(PDF)
1605:S2CID
1559:: 703
1523:(PDF)
1219:order
1202:Some
1096:Brady
1033:must
356:Trial
219:Reply
136:Venue
3094:2023
3073:2022
3043:2020
3030:ISBN
3006:2020
2993:ISBN
2914:ISBN
2872:2017
2866:: 63
2841:2017
2803:2017
2754:2017
2728:2017
2702:2017
2671:2017
2640:2017
2610:2017
2580:2017
2545:2017
2487:2018
2435:link
2428:help
2380:2020
2367:ISBN
2337:ISBN
2277:2020
2264:ISBN
2240:2022
2227:ISBN
2206:2022
2193:ISBN
2172:2020
2072:2023
2059:ISBN
2017:2023
2004:ISBN
1980:2019
1931:2023
1918:ISBN
1894:2023
1881:ISBN
1856:2021
1843:ISBN
1819:2021
1806:ISBN
1782:2021
1769:ISBN
1746:2023
1733:ISBN
1709:2023
1696:ISBN
1654:2023
1641:ISBN
1565:2017
1534:2017
1176:must
1074:and
906:and
738:and
597:and
390:Jury
2946:doi
2458:doi
2302:doi
2110:hdl
2102:doi
1597:doi
955:or
840:all
629:in
569:of
567:law
3250::
3237::
3183:,
3173:^
3051:^
3014:^
2952:.
2942:46
2940:.
2922:.
2880:^
2862:.
2858:.
2832:.
2793:.
2744:.
2718:.
2692:.
2679:^
2661:.
2657:.
2630:.
2618:^
2600:.
2568:17
2566:.
2562:.
2537:29
2535:.
2531:.
2506:39
2504:.
2478:.
2456:.
2452:.
2419::
2417:}}
2413:{{
2308:.
2298:51
2296:.
2164:39
2162:.
2158:.
2138:^
2124:.
2116:.
2108:.
2096:.
2092:.
2038:^
1972:90
1970:.
1964:.
1939:^
1677:^
1622:^
1603:.
1593:10
1591:.
1573:^
1557:50
1555:.
1551:.
1525:.
1259:.
1070:,
1054:,
1050:,
1046:,
1022:.
688:.
641:,
593:,
589:,
3220:.
3155:.
3096:.
3075:.
3045:.
3008:.
2960:.
2948::
2874:.
2864:9
2843:.
2805:.
2756:.
2730:.
2704:.
2673:.
2663:7
2642:.
2612:.
2582:.
2547:.
2516:.
2489:.
2464:.
2460::
2437:)
2430:)
2426:(
2382:.
2345:.
2316:.
2304::
2279:.
2242:.
2208:.
2174:.
2132:.
2112::
2104::
2098:6
2074:.
2019:.
1982:.
1933:.
1896:.
1858:.
1821:.
1784:.
1748:.
1711:.
1656:.
1617:.
1611:.
1599::
1567:.
1536:.
1505:.
543:e
536:t
529:v
485:)
479:)
470:(
456:(
416:(
398:)
215:)
176:(
125:)
105:(
92:)
72:(
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.