Thursday, May 13, 2010

If in a civil case in RI, you discover that the defendant?

did not disclose all requested discovery, but in fact is hiding said evidence under work product privilege laws. What is this called, is this serious, will a judge then allow access to the work product privilege file?If in a civil case in RI, you discover that the defendant?
called, hindering an investigation? Especially if it can be proved that the work product was intentionally hidden. Yes it is serious. The judge should allow access to the work product not fully disclosed if it is brought to his attention.





Good Luck!If in a civil case in RI, you discover that the defendant?
I can't answer your question in any detail w/o more facts, but I will do my best. Some information that a person gathers or has about a case is protected by work product. Work product is information gathered in anticipation of a lawsuit - such as an incident report which is filled out by a grocery store after a slip and fall so that if they get sued 3 yrs later they have a way to record what happened and know who was working that day. Other examples of work product would be research they do on the person who claims he/she was injured, such as a background check, finding evidence of other claims, and talking to witnesses.


If discovery (requests for information) are sent to the other side, he or she must either produce the information, say they don't have it or identify what they have and say why they think it is privileged. If the other attorney has identified what they have that is privileged - i.e. I have a statement from witness Betty that I took on July 7th 2008 - the lawyer on the other side can argue an exception to it if there is a legal basis to do so - or if there isn't one, they know I have it and can go find Betty themselves. If the case proceeds towards trial and I want to put Betty's statement into evidence I have to disclose and provide a copy to you.


Listing something as privileged is NOT hiding it from the court. The lawyers can ask the judge to look at it ';in camera'; (without the other side being able to see it) if they want to to rule on whether they have to produce it but that is not ';hiding'; anything and there is nothing improper about it.


If the shoe were on the other foot and you had told your lawyer, for instance, that you were drunk at the time of the accident but that was not an issue in how the ax happened b/c you were a passenger in the car that was hit, would you want your lawyer to turn over the info that you told him you were drunk?

No comments:

Post a Comment