Discovery | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys. Updated 2. 01. 3 by Gregory Bass, 2. Jeffrey S. Gutman. Discovery is the process of uncovering relevant facts through identifying witnesses, documents, and other items that can lead to establishing those facts as admissible evidence. Pre- litigation investigation is covered in Chapter 4. MANUAL. This chapter discusses the formal tools of civil discovery, the methods for protecting against unwarranted discovery and motions to compel permitted discovery.
A. The Scope of Allowable Discovery. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specify the general parameters of allowable discovery in a lawsuit.
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that went into effect on December 1, 2. Rule 2. 6(b), in particular the definition of "relevance." This chapter will be updated accordingly, but in the meantime, advocates are advised to review these changes.) Rule 2. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non- privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Involved in cannabinoid-induced CNS effects. Acts by inhibiting adenylate cyclase. Could be a receptor for anandamide. Inhibits L-type Ca(2+) channel current. Isoform 2 and isoform 3 have altered ligand binding. Global Online Auction BAKING & PACKAGING EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OF NESTLE: (2) CPM WOLVERINE 4-ZONE AIR IMPINGEMENT OVENS & (6) FUJI MODEL FW3700 HORIZONTAL FLOW WRAPPERS Starts: Monday, February 29, 2016 - 9:00am (PST) Ends. When I purchased the Horton Brotherhood Crossbow I had already had experience deer hunting with their Yukon SL and Summit 150 bows. Both were consistently effective out to 35 yards but at 40-45 yards a bit less effective.
All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 2. C)./1/As a threshold matter, the Rule establishes a broad scope of allowable discovery. The U. S. Supreme Court discussed the oft- quoted rationale for this standard in an early case: We agree, of course, that the deposition- discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time- honored cry of ‘fishing expedition’ serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition- discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of surprise./2/The Court has reiterated this broad standard, stating that it “has more than once declared that the deposition- discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment to effect their purpose of adequately informing the litigants in civil trials.”/3/ At the same time, the Court has also directed that the requirement of relevance of material sought in discovery should be “firmly applied.”/4/ Rule 2.
Reinforced Concrete Manual 1. INSTRUCTOR’S SOLUTIONS MANUAL REINFORCED CONCRETE A FUNDAMENTAL APPROACH S I X T H E D I T I O N EDWARD G. NAWY Pearson Education International 2. Vice President and Editorial. River of Guns searches hundreds of forums so you can find the best deals on guns and gear. It's the number one place to go if you're looking to buy firearms and shooting related equipment. SEO and SEM professionals use SEMrush to find the best keywords and online marketing ideas. (2) 04A42-015B-05 120V 4' Bracket Only (2) 405-043A 120V 4' Blade Only (2) 501-138B 120V 4' Motor Only 02A42-009A Lock Strike For SM Models 02B01-085D Door Assembly - RH 19-7/8' x 30-3/8' BB72-B 02B01-089D Door Assembly - LH.
It addresses them in three basic ways. First, unless limited by court order, parties are entitled to discover “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” The practical scope of discovery is broad, as it includes “the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” Second, upon a showing of “good cause,” parties may seek the intervention of the court to attempt to broaden the scope of discovery beyond matters relevant to claims or defenses, to “any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Third, whether pertinent to claims or defenses or to the subject matter of the case, “relevant information” is not circumscribed by evidence that will be admissible at trial, as long as “the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”/5/ The initial standard of presumptively allowable discovery relevant to claims and defenses and the need for parties to seek court intervention, upon a showing of good cause, to expand this scope to matters relevant to the subject matter of the action reflects a compromise between the competing claims of discovery being either overbroad or necessary to develop the case./6/ There is no precise dividing line between discovery that is relevant to either claims or defenses, or to the subject matter of the action. The good cause assessment is “meant to be flexible,” and will depend on the circumstances of the pending action./7/ For example, information about “other incidents of the same type,” although “not directly pertinent to the incident in suit,” could still be considered relevant to the claims or defenses raised in the action. Similarly, information potentially usable to impeach a witness, “although not otherwise relevant to the claims or defenses, might be properly discoverable.”/8/ The difference between the two standards, “while meaningful, is not dramatic, and broad discovery remains the norm.”/9/ The “relevance” standard itself remains broad./1.
Rule 2. 6(b)(1) effectively establishes a bi- level framework for discovery: [The Rule has] . Accordingly, when a party objects that discovery goes beyond that relevant to the claims or defenses, “the court would become involved to determine whether the discovery is relevant to the claims or defenses and, if not, whether good cause exists for authorizing it so long as it is relevant to the subject matter of the action.” The good–cause standard is intended to be flexible.
When the district court does intervene in discovery, it has discretion in determining what the scope of discovery should be./1. Thus, the initial scope of discovery is determined by the parties, as they frame their claims for relief or defenses. However, the Rule also “signals to the court that it has the authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and signals to the parties that they have no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or defenses that are not already identified in the pleadings.”/1. The district court in Thompson v. Department of Housing and Urban Development expressed a utilitarian approach that emphasizes the parties’ cooperation in mutually framing, if possible, the scope of discovery: Lest litigants and the court become consumed with the philosophical exercise of debating the difference between discovery relevant to the “claims and defenses” as opposed to the “subject matter” of the pending action—the juridical equivalent to debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin—the practical solution to implementing the new rule changes may be to focus more on whether the requested discovery makes sense in light of the Rule 2. Under this approach, when confronted with a difficult scope of discovery dispute, the parties themselves should confer, and discuss the Rule 2.
The Rule 2. 6(b)(2) factors referenced by the Thompson court further provide for direct court involvement in potentially limiting the scope of discovery. The Rule specifies three considerations which, if present, require the court to limit the scope of otherwise permissible discovery. Rule 2. 6(b)(2)(C) states: On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues./1. Rule 2. 6(b)(2)(C) grants courts the discretion to weigh the burden or expense of proposed discovery against an assessment of its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. The Rule “places an obligation on the trial court to limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise permitted by Rule 2.
Courts have “considerable authority to limit a party's pursuit of otherwise discoverable information where the burden of a discovery request is likely to outweigh the benefits.”/1. This coincides with the general direction of Rule 2.
The purpose of the Rule is to “promote judicial limitation of the amount of discovery on a case–by–case basis to avoid abuse or overuse of discovery through the concept of proportionality.”/1. This doesn’t necessarily mandate that the parties or the court must undertake a detailed assessment of the merits and their relationship to the discovery needs of the action. “In general, it seems that the proportionality provisions should not be treated as separate and discrete grounds to limit discovery so much as indicia of proper use of discovery mechanisms; they do not call for counsel to undertake complex analysis.”/1. Nor is it a “warrant to implement personal views about the importance of issues raised.”/2. Nevertheless, advocates should anticipate arguments citing the factors of Rule 2. C), as reasons for limiting or denying discovery requests outright. Be prepared to demonstrate that your discovery request is a timely, reasonably tailored, and legitimate inquiry into matters which critically relate to the issues raised by the action. 6. B. Mandatory Initial Disclosures.
In most cases, Rule 2. A) requires each party at the outset of litigation to automatically make significant, self- executing “initial disclosures” in writing, without waiting for formal discovery requests from the opposing party.