Leonardo Angiulo: The Discovery Process in Civil Cases
Monday, January 28, 2013
Sometimes people new to the world of civil litigation are caught unaware by the amount of time that passes between filing a complaint and their trial date. The reality is, however, that many cases are won before opening statements are ever given because of the evidence developed during the pretrial discovery process. This process is governed by the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. Within these rules are several basic tools that Attorneys have to find relevant and admissible proof of a claim or defense.
Take depositions as an example. This procedure is governed by Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 30 and essentially codifies exactly who is supposed to do what. Many people are familiar with this event where two lawyers sit across from each other, a client is subjected to questioning and a stenographer sits by to record the conversation. Depositions can be helpful because it allows opposing counsel an opportunity to hear what a witness has to say, but also how they will say it if the case goes to trial.
Another common discovery tool are interrogatories. Mass. R. Civ. P. 33 documents how parties can draft up to thirty questions and send those to the opposing party for answering. This is a relatively simple thing that can have significant effect. This series of one liners can help counsel narrow down factual questions for trial and may even be read into evidence at trial to meet an element of proof.
Another helpful provision is Mass. R. Civ. P. 34 permitting requests for production of documents. These requests are similar to interrogatories but, instead of a person providing their own answers, the opposing party responds with physical items. This is where attorneys secure most evidence for admission at trial. Common items produced are things like documentation, photographs and correspondence.
As you can imagine, the rules are in place to ensure consistent opportunities for all parties to litigation. Not only are there standards for how things should happen but there are also consequences for failing to participate. Within Mass. R. Civ. P. 37 are sanctions for all manners of non-compliance. Take, as an example, a failure to respond to interrogatories. This can result in a disputed fact being decided against the non-compliant party, an order barring a party from raising certain defenses or claims, or even a default judgment against the party who has not participated in discovery.
The rules exist because every litigant should have equal opportunity to gather evidence in support of their claim or defense. This opportunity is essential to a fair trial and can make the difference between a victory and defeat.
Related Articles
- Leonardo Angiulo: Exactly What Happens After She Has Your Baby
- Leonardo Angiulo: Are Forced Blood Tests Constitutional in DUI Arrests?
- Leonardo Angiulo: Questions Remain About Medical Marijuana
- Leonardo Angiulo: Statutes of Limitations May Bring Your Past into the New Year
- Leonardo Angiulo: The Differences Between Criminal and Civil Cases
- Leonardo Angiulo: The Importance of Understanding Your Auto Insurance Coverage
- Leonardo Angiulo: Two Supreme Court Decisions Shaping the Gun Control Debate
- Leonardo Angiulo: What Happens After an Arraignment
- Leonardo Angiulo: What to do When Facing a Civil Complaint
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Follow us on Facebook Twitter See It Read It Share It