- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
This reminds me of a burning question I've had...I know that they legally must hand over all information that has been requested.
No, they can refuse if they state a valid reason, such as attorney/client privilege or that it's completely irrelevant. If it's privilege, they have to create a list of all the contested material called a "privilege log" and explain their reasoning. If the other side challenges it, the judge can grant an order limiting the scope of discovery or review the items in camera (by himself or with the parties) and decide which are actually privileged.
But what's stopping them from picking and choosing what they share? How does the court know whether or not all discovery has been...discovered? How can the court police some damning information that one of the parties witholds?
Is it a situation of, "you better damn well reveal everything or you will be shitcanned if something comes out in the future"?
There are a variety of punishments just like anything else. They can have to pay attorney fees for the other side having to argue about it, up to just flat out losing their case in extreme cases. If they later try to enter anything into evidence for their defenses that they should have turned over in discovery but didn't, the other side can argue they shouldn't be allowed to use any of that evidence. If that means they lose their case, they lose their case. Or they can just automatically lose their case.