Posted by wlansden |
Filed under commentary, discovery, trials
By Eileen Burkhalter Smith
Query: Are discovery responses of a party admissible as evidence, if offered by that party? Your response will surely be “for what purpose?” But, does it matter?
I have touched on a similar topic before here concerning pleadings. I think we can all agree that pleadings are admissible in a trial. As I said in the earlier post, pleadings are allowed in part because they are “court records” and contain “adjudicative facts.” See Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Should discovery responses fall under this rule?
In a recent trial, I asked a party representative a question—the exact question that had been asked of my party in interrogatories. My party representative was poised to give the same response we had provided to the interrogatory about four years ago. The other side objected and argued “relevance;” sustained. Without considering its actual relevance, I wonder if this would have worked if the roles had been reversed? Would the evidence have been kept out if I had wanted to prevent it—evidence asked of a party representative which had been provided in interrogatories?
I am really not sure of the answer, nor what it should be. I think a pleading or discovery response (which, incidentally, in some courts, would have been a pleading) is different than deposition testimony or documentary evidence. It is a response of a party which was prepared and signed. Who’s with me?
Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people
- Currently 5/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5