My question involves court procedures for the state of: DE
I'm a spectator in a civil case and read some subpoenas duces tecum from the plaintiff. Despite the fact that the plaintiff knows with specificity what responsive documents exist, during what time period, and on which communication systems the subpoena makes only the most general requests. E.g., instead of, "Communications between A and B, including on email accounts C and D, and messaging platform E..." the subpoena asks for, "Documents reflecting communications between A and B."
It seems like the more general subpoena is just begging for an incomplete response. Is the lawyer drafting the subpoena being sloppy, or preparing to drag out discovery through repeated subpoenas and motions required to get the defendants to include everything? Or is there an established tactical reason to not be specific in a subpoena?
I'm a spectator in a civil case and read some subpoenas duces tecum from the plaintiff. Despite the fact that the plaintiff knows with specificity what responsive documents exist, during what time period, and on which communication systems the subpoena makes only the most general requests. E.g., instead of, "Communications between A and B, including on email accounts C and D, and messaging platform E..." the subpoena asks for, "Documents reflecting communications between A and B."
It seems like the more general subpoena is just begging for an incomplete response. Is the lawyer drafting the subpoena being sloppy, or preparing to drag out discovery through repeated subpoenas and motions required to get the defendants to include everything? Or is there an established tactical reason to not be specific in a subpoena?
Discovery: Should Subpoenas Be General, or As Specific As Possible
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire