ummmm, minty, I think what people are trying to say is that “legally obligated” is a far cry from “if I dont do it, i’m going to get into trouble”. Certainly you can understand this?
I’m not advocating breaking the law, in this case, but certainly it would be quite simple, in theory, to avoid disclosing this thread, since it would be quite difficult to link this thread to the actual person?
People break the law all the time and don’t get into trouble for it, geesh. Most of the time it’s a shame, some of the time it’s okay, I reserve judgement here.
And that, my friends, is why we went through the Monica Lewinsky episode. Because once you file a suit - whatever the merits - you can open up with all lines of questions and evidence finding regarding anything remotely connected with the case. And next thing you know, you find some inconsistency or other and turn your focus there.
Of course in this case it is directly connected to the case. But the point still is that we have a low threshold before allowing people to sue - none, essentially - but yet the mere fact that you are suing someone allows you to harass them with all sorts of questioning and probing and evidence finding.
But the point is the same. The legal rights exist to do these things - it is the motivation that would vary. In the case of Clinton, they were using their legal rights to try to embarrass him. In the case of KarlGauss they would be using these same rights to try to trip him up in some inconsistency and squeeze some bucks out of him. From the perspective of the legal system it is essentially the same process, being abused for different ends.
jjimm, I would rather not have a court clerk make any kind of decisions at all. But I would have a low threshold before a lawsuit is declared frivolous (to include cases such as these) and have the court penalize those who bring the cases. (It would be ironic justice if the court would award the victims some money from whoever was negligent, but then turn around and pass all the money on to the various innocent people who were sued along the way.)
I have a quick question about this then. Would this mean that he would have to turn over all personal notes on the case? For instance, and not in this case really, he was being sued over a car accident, he took notes on traffic light times, road conditions etc would he also have to turn these over? These are facts, does this also mean he could just walk up to another lawyer and say I want to see your notes. Why are these not the same? Where is the line drawn? I really don’t understand so some insite would be nice.
Eddie, as I said above, I am not going to respond to further inquiries in this thread. If you wish to start a different thread about the principles of discovery in general, I will be happy to participate in that general discussion.
Frivolous lawsuits in the U.S…
I watched an episode of 60-minutes (couple of years ago) that compared lawsuits in the U.S. versus Canada.
From what I remember the gist of it was this:
In the U.S., I spill hot coffee from McDonalds on myself, get burned and sue them. And (assuming McDonalds fights back) I lose. I only pay my court fee, lawyers fee etc, and go on my merry way.
In Canada, I spill hot coffee from McDonalds on myself, get burned and sue them. And (they still decide to fight) I lose. Not only do I have to pay for my expenses, but also McDonalds, including the team of high-priced lawyers they used. Hence, less bullshit lawsuits.
If I am wrong in my recollection, feel free to correct. But if I am right, why the $%&# doesn’t the U.S. adopt this policy?
Anything that would be admissible or which is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence is discoverable. Yeah, if you took notes on traffic light times, that most likely would be discoverable.
There is a wrinkle if an item is privileged. For example, your conversations with a lawyer for the purposes of legal representation are shielded from discovery under the attorney-client privilege. The paper your attorney generates in the course of preparing your defense is protected under the work product privilege – if your lawyer went to the accident scene and took notes on traffic light times, that isn’t discoverable.
There are other privileges as well (e.g., priest-penitent; spousal communications; doctor-patient) though the degree to which they are recognized varies from state to state. Also, like I said, this is an extremely oversimplified post – this post would be very, very long if I tried to go over all the specific parameters for each privilege. Caveat Lector.
All the more reason why I don’t bother to stop if I see an accident. My first aid training included an hour’s discussion on getting involved performing first aid and the legal ramifications.
Unless something involves me or mine I won’t help for fear of being sued. Nice society we live in eh?
Thanks to all of you for letting me vent and for empathizing. It really does help. Thank you.
A few points of clarification. Since I work outside the USA, some of the ramifications may be different for me than for an American doc. And, truthfully, it’s probably not as bad for me.
I will be pursuing all my options (but would rather have had not to). At the end of the day, I am certain this will be thrown out (or at least my part of it).
Minty now has me worried, so I’d best drop it here.
It makes it virtually impossible to a poor person to sue, regardless of the merits of the case. They will not have the cash up front for a multi-year legal battle, and contingency is out as the downside is just too great a risk.
In the US system, an attorney can take on a solid case on contingency, and will only be out her own effort and expenses if the client loses.
There are merits to both approaches.
The US system provides an avenue for all people, rich or poor, to seek compensation in the courts. This leads to a lot of abuses.
Other systems, by attempting to limit frivolous cases by assigning high risks to losing, also tend to insulate the very rich and the very large corporations from ever having to answer for their actions.
At least that is the way it was explained to me
And since this is the pit, you don’t get a fucking cite
And it gets worse, because it’s far from cut-and-dried as to what is discoverable. So often, the bulk of a case consists of discovery battles between plaintiff and defendant. And if you’re really sleazy, you can stonewall the opposition by raising a bunch of bullshit objections to discovery, or feign confusion as to the nature of the question (What is the meaning of “is”?).
