A party may obtain information about a defendant`s assets in an action for punitive damages only by court order setting reasonable limits on the time of discovery, the extent of discovery, and the dissemination of the discovered material. Therefore, even if the questioner knows the name of the expert or knows that there is an expert report, he or she is prohibited from seeking the discovery of known facts or opinions unless he or she satisfies the court that he or she must have the discovery. This is a heavy burden that explains the poor enforcement of this provision under the federal rule. We can expect an equally low turnout in Pennsylvania. The American Bar Association`s Civil Discovery Standard No. 8 (2004) establishes a guideline for the use of litigation. This standard has been added as a note to Rule 4003.1(c) on the disclosure of representations and allegations and as the second paragraph to this note to Rule 4005(a) on written hearings of a party. The risk of aggression is particularly present when interrogations to substantiate in detail the allegations of the opposing parties are served at the beginning of the case. While examinations served at the beginning of the case can be useful in narrowing the issues to define the scope of discovery, litigation hearings are generally more appropriate after most of the disclosure has already taken place. At this stage, the party on whom the hearings are served should have the necessary information to provide concrete and useful answers. [Citations omitted.] In the Orphan Courts Division, section 3.6 of the Juvenile Court of the Supreme Court provides that local orphan courts may, as a general rule or special order, prescribe practice with respect to statements, discoveries, production of documents and preservation of witness statements. Unless otherwise provided by a general rule or special order, the rule of the Orphans` Court provides that the practice in this matter must correspond to the practice in the first instance or civil division of the Local Court of Common Pleas.
As a result, some courts have issued local regulations that require court approval in all orphan court cases. Others limit detection to varying degrees. Others have not adopted local regulations, thus adopting these rules in their entirety. In a unified judicial system and national practice, this lack of uniformity is not desirable. However, the rules of the Orphans` Court are independent and cannot be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. A party or expert witness who has responded to a request for information with a complete response is not required to complete the response to include information obtained subsequently, except in the following cases: While the term “electronically stored information” is used in these rules, there is no intention to include federal jurisdiction over the discovery of electronically stored information. The treatment of these issues must be determined in accordance with the traditional principles of proportionality under Pennsylvania law, as explained in more detail below. This rule is not intended to affect the admissibility of evidence that may be found under this rule or evidence that is the result of discovery, or the power of the defendant to request the suppression of such evidence. See Rule 211 for the procedure for disclosing an affidavit of a sealed search warrant. Neither the federal rules prior to their amendment in 1970 nor the former Rule 4007 addressed this issue. Some courts have held that a party that first served has priority that would prevent statements or discoveries by other parties until the first party has completed its own statements and discoveries. This led to a courthouse race.
The proposed rule, which was adopted almost word for word by Fed. 26 (d) to overturn these decisions. More than twenty-five years of experience and general acceptance of the philosophy of discovery justify aligning the Pennsylvania system as closely as possible with the federal system. Differences between state and federal practices still prevent absolute identity. If the expert is not expected to be called to trial, the situation is quite different. The special procedures listed above are not applicable. Under paragraph (a)(3) of the rule, the discovery of such a witness is not admissible, except for the discovery of a medical expert under rule 4010(b) below, unless there is a court order. To obtain this injunction, the plaintiff must prove exceptional circumstances in which there is no practical way to verify facts or opinions by other means. Documents relating to the preparation of the trial, including witness statements, whether taken by a lawyer or an investigator, are now fully traceable, except that the mental impressions of a lawyer for the party or his or her conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories are protected from discovery. Representatives of a party who are not counsel for the party are protected from disclosure of impressions, conclusions or mental opinions that respect the value or merits of a claim or defence, or strategy or tactics. If the full scope of the expert`s testimony is set out in the response to the hearings or in the separate report, as provided for in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), the permissible limits of the expert`s testimony at trial shall be determined.
However, if the investigator limits his investigation to one or more specific issues, the expert is free to testify in court on any other relevant matter not included in the discovery. Therefore, what happens at trial may depend on how the expert is questioned. The questioner may be well advised to make his or her discovery generally by paraphrasing the wording of paragraph 4003.5(a), which requires the expert to state all of his or her opinions and reasons, thereby preventing a surprising statement in court on reasons that were never raised during discovery. * * * * Interrogations, like all forms of detection, can be vulnerable to abuse. Among other things, they can serve as an attempt to tie up the opposing party instead of getting a discovery. The legitimate purpose of interrogations is to narrow down the issues for the trial, not to force the opposing party to put all its evidence on paper.