In the past, the rules of discovery were very restrictive, and trials often turn

Question

In the past, the rules of discovery were very restrictive, and trials often turned on elements of surprise. For example, a plaintiff would not necessarily know until the trial what the defendant’s defense was going to be. In the last several decades, however, new rules of discovery have substantially changed this situation. Now each attorney can access practically all of the evidence that the other side intends to present at trial, with the exception of certain information–namely, the opposing attorney’s work product. Work product is not a precise concept. Basically, it includes all of the attorney’s thoughts on the case. Can you see any reason why such information should not be made available to the opposing attorney? Discuss fully.

Explanation / Answer

Such information like work product should not be made available to the opposing attorney because it can give upper hand in the case to the opposing attorney. Although each of attorneys can access practically all of the evidence that other side intends to present at trail. Not all the information should be shared to the opposition attorney as it will give opposition the strategy which the attorney is going to present. So there chance that both parties will try to counter evidences and each other strategy. So such information should not be made available in order to keep the trail fair as everyone has right to defend its side.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.