Pretrial Discovery

Question: What is Broad Pretrial Discovery? (Law Term)?

Answer: that generally describes the process of searching for evidence in a civil suit. This includes depositions, interrogatories and production of documents. It may include on-site inspections, expert witness or other examinations. Broad discovery just means that all methods of discovery are to be used. Narrow discovery would limit the discovery process in some way. Maybe by a protective order or other means to limit the scope of discovery.

Question: can i file for discovery after i "denied" in the pretrial? i was given two options by the judge admit or deny. i denied then he stated me and the collectors need to talk to see if we can get it resolved, if not then it will be taking to court. i went to court for a credit card debt and would like them to furbish proof of their claim. I believe they fabricated the latest payment. It is the state of florida. If i am able to ... then how do i retrieve that form and whom do i submit it to? any info on wat steps to take would be grateful. thanks for the responses. but how do i request discovery?!?! where can i retrieve the form and do i send it certified mail to their offices? i need to know where to get the form.

Answer: In civil litigation,(not criminal) you have a right to discovery regardless of admit or deny. Admit would have meant that you agreed that you owed the debt, denied means either you don't owe the debt or that you dispute the amount. I would talk to the lawyers on the other side and see if you can't offer them 1/2 of what they say you owe, and end the whole thing. You could end up paying court costs if you push it to far. IF you offer 1/2 they will come back with a counter offer at about 3/4. They will also accept payments.....

Question: how long does a wrongful dismissal lawsuit in Ontario take? From the day a lawsuit is filed in Ontario under Simplified Rules, how many months until Discovery, pretrial and trial, usually?

Answer: Depends on the lawyers, the complexity of the case, and the local Court schedule. The Simplified Rules changed at the start of the year. Until this year, there were *no* examinations for discovery under Simplified Rules. So it's kind of unexplored terrain... But here's a sense of the timeframe: The plaintiff starts by issuing the Statement of Claim with the Court. He then has six months to serve the Defendant(s) with the Claim. Frequently, in a wrongful dismissal, this will be done immediately. The Defendant then has thirty days to serve and file a Defence. (Well, twenty by default, but this is extended by service of a Notice of Intent to Defend...which, in practice, will almost always be served.) So there's a month passed right there. Then, there's a further period of time (ten days, I believe) that the plaintiff has to Reply. So we're talking about six weeks or so to the close of pleadings. It used to be, under the old Rules, that an affidavit of documents (a list of all arguably relevant documents) had to be served within ten days of the close of pleadings. This never really happened in practice. The new Rules reflect this, and basically require that the affidavit of documents has to be served before the other party can be examined for discovery. So this is the first place where the amount of time it might take depends on your lawyer. In practice, you're probably looking at moving to examinations for discovery within a few months. Some lawyers will take longer to move it forward; with some you might be able to get it moving more quickly. Likewise, more complicated files will take longer to move to this stage. Under some circumstances, it will just sit for years after the close of pleadings. After examinations for discovery, there's usually a period of time (typically weeks or months) in which the lawyers are carrying out 'undertakings' given at the examinations. On the one hand, I think that with only two hours allotted to examinations for discovery under the Simplified Procedure rules, undertakings would be more limited and easier to fulfill...but on the other hand, I suspect that many lawyers will circumvent the narrow timeframes by making more significant use of requests for undertakings. Occasionally you'll have multiple rounds of examinations, in complicated matters. But typically, once undertakings are fulfilled, you'll then move to filing a trial record and having the trial scheduled. Depending on the Court and the complexity of the case, this is likely to be in the range of a few months out. Ultimately, I'd estimate that par would be 18-24 months. However, these things can take much longer.

Question: In legal terms what is the meaning of "voir dire?"? I believe it has to do with discovery in a pretrial hearing. Am I right?

Answer: No, not exactly. It's not discovery of evidence. "Voir dire" can be loosely translated to 'speak/see the truth' and it's the process of questioning potential jurors in a case. I should know, I have been through the process many times in jury duty. Lawyers for each side have a certain number of 'peremptory challenges' where they can dismiss jurors who they feel may present a bias against their side of the case. The last time I had jury duty, the voir dire process took two weeks and I was the last juror dismissed after all that! I'd had jury duty twice before (and was seated as a juror) -- both for murder trials--- and the voir dire took less than two days each time. This time, the judge himself said it was a very extensive and unusual voir dire proceeding, including a 10 page written questionnaire as well as personal questions directed at us individually by the lawyers and judge. We were asked the usual questions about whether or not we knew any of the parties in the case but also asked a lot of questions to 'test' our familiarity with the geography of the towns where the alleged crimes (sexual abuse of children) took place. We were asked if we felt that law enforcement agents were more truthful than average citizens (the accused was a cop) and asked for our political views as well as what bumper stickers were on our cars. The judge wanted to know what TV shows we watched, what papers we read to get our news, and what websites we frequently surfed. What else? We were asked about our personal views on corporal punishment of children and whether or not we or anyone we knew had ever been abused as a child. You can see why this process took a very long time with all these questions...

Question: Pretrial procedure in a civil case? I have a homework assignment that involves basically copying out of the textbook the order of events in pretrial procedure. Being a college student with absolutely no money, I do not have this textbook. While I can find a general idea of pretrial procedure, I cannot find an exact order. I have the following to go on, out of order: Court rules on motions. Attorneys conduct discovery procedures. Court conducts pretrial conference. Plaintiff files complaint. Parties may file motions for summary judgment or judgment on pleadings. Complaint and summons served on defendant. Defendant files motion or answer with possible counterclaim and defenses. Plaintiff files reply to answer. Am I correct in thinking this is the proper order?: 1.) Plaintiff files complaint 2.) Complaint and summons served on defendant. 3.) Defendant files motion or answer with possible counterclaim and defenses. 4.) Plaintiff files reply to answer. 5.) Parties may file motions for summary judgment or judgment on pleadings. 6.) Attorneys conduct discovery procedures. 7.) Court conducts pretrial conference. 8.) Court rules on motions. Any help would be appreciated.

Answer: As most civil cases were different depending on what part of the country you resided in the federal government needed to have some sort of universal procedure and thereby came up with The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which are now contained in title 28 of the U.S. Code. I have spared you some time in looking this up and enclosed the national center for state courts link for you. http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/CourTopics/…

Question: Why Plaintiff's lawyer chose Subpoena instead of deposition? I am suing a company and the CEO was called to set up a date for his deposition. We were informed that his lawyer requested we subpoena him...why? This is pretrial discovery, why would he reject the deposition and request to be subpoenaed instead? laughter...are you saying that if he agrees to a set a date for a deposition, he is pretty much agreeing to one...where if he gets a subpoena and when responding to the subpoena, he convinces the court that he does not have to comply. (motion to quash)...he is off the hook from being deposed? theHoundDawg...under what circumstances can the CEO move to quash a subpoena? theHaundDawg...could it be that he is looking to file a motion to quash the subpoena, or seek a protective order because he now holds a political position in Washington D.C and he is no longer a CEO (he was though when this incident happened)?...if so, does he have grounds?

Answer: You're getting all sorts of wrong information. A party can compel a deposition by one of two procedures, Notice or Subpoena. A party to a lawsuit is required to appear at a deposition by being served a Notice to Appear at Deposition. Officers of a corporate defendant are also subject to a Notice to Appear at Deposition, but exactly who among officers, high level employees, or others would be subject to a Notice would vary by state. Anyone can be served a Subpoena to appear at a deposition (the same way anyone can be served a Subpoena to appear at a trial), regardless as to whether or not they are a party to the lawsuit. If they are to be required to bring documents along with them to the deposition, they they are served a Subpoena Duces Tecum. If someone duly compelled to appear at a deposition, whether by Subpoena or Notice, fails to appear, the party seeking their deposition can thereafter get a court order for their appearance, and if they fail to appear again, serious sanctions can be ordered, including if a defendant fails to appear, having their Answer to the Complaint stricken and a default judgment entered. Normally, an officer, such as the CEO in your case, would want to avoid having a Subpoena served on him, but he may have some information harmful to the company to say at his deposition, and wants to make sure that it appears to others - stockholders, other officers, etc. - that he is not testifying willingly, but is being compelled to do so. Edit to Add: The CEO would have two possible grounds that I could think of: 1) That he knows nothing about the case. Your attorney, if he does have a need to depose the CEO, should be able to make a prima facie showing of what type of information is within the CEO's knowledge that is relevant to material issues of the case; 2) That the Subpoena was not properly served. You should not rely on a private process server to serve the Subpoena. Have the Sheriff or if your local court has a Marshall's office, have them serve the Subpoena, and the Judge will be unlikely to quash service of the Subpoena. Edit to Add: His political position does not give him grounds to refuse to testify in a civil case that has nothing to do with his current position. He may try to say he cannot leave Washington because he is too busy with vital governmental matters, but your attorney could counter that by taking his deposition in Washington, or doing it by video with the deponent in Washington and the attorney in his own office (I did that in the past). It basically comes down to this: If he is properly served and has information relevant to your case, you will be able to have him deposed. If your attorney only wants his deposition for strategic reasons, to harass, or as a fishing expedition, it likely will not happen.