Sentences with phrase «discovery of admissible evidence»

A person pursuing a money recovery in an injury lawsuit is required to provide access to anything that the defendant's lawyers seek that is «reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence» and is within their custody or control.

In response to the defendant's argument that a party to litigation is entitled to the production of evidence that is «reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,» Magistrate Judge Facciola held that the defendant's purpose for seeking the images (which was to admit them as evidence of the plaintiff's own standard of behaviour) meant that the issue of discoverability and the issue of admissibility were inseparable.

Some of the objections included «objects to plaintiff's interrogatories and said the interrogatories are unduly burdensome and overly broad» and «certain of plaintiff's interrogatories seek information which is neither relevant nor material of the present cause of action, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.»

He mentioned that one such proposed change includes removing the language in Rule 26 that states «Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.»

The permissible scope of discovery is whether the information you are seeking is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

A federal magistrate judge, for example, doesn't need three cases to understand that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b) permits a party to discover «any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense» or information that «appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.»

Not exact matches

When 72.34 (2d) becomes an NSC, we can all oppose the production at discovery, and use of electronic records as admissible evidence, on the grounds that the ERMSs that produced them have not been certified as being in compliance with any authoritative ERMS standard.

So no matter what, the attorney may not destroy, or cause to be destroyed, any evidence that is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of other relevant evidence that may, or may not be admissible at trial.

Recognizing these facts, litigators and investigators in both civil and criminal matters have begun to focus carefully on electronic discovery and the role of computer forensics — the science of reliably recovering and handling electronic storage media and the data contained therein so as to provide the appropriate foundations for admissible evidence.