Talk:Discovery (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Template Naming 2 Template Naming 3 Criminal discovery 4 Dictionary definition should go 5 Add these? 6 This article needs work

[edit] Template Naming

"Discovery in the United States is unique compared to other common law countries. In the United States, discovery is mostly performed by the litigating parties themselves, with relatively minimal judicial oversight."

That bluntly isn't true. English discovery - now renamed disclosure - is also performed by the parties themselves, with minimal judicial oversight, if indeed any.

193.133.69.162 11:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Naming

Does anyone else think that "Resolution Without Trial" deserves to be mentioned in the Civil Procedure template? There does not seem to be any mention of it between Discovery and Lawsuit.

Also, the term "Lawsuit" seems sort of vague in the template. The entire procedural process is more of the "lawsuit" as opposed to the portion of the litigation after Pre-Trial Procedure and before Appeal. Perhaps "Trial" would be a more approriate term?

[edit] Criminal discovery

There is also discovery in American criminal proceedings. Could someone with knowledge of the subject add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.105.7 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 January 2006

[edit] Dictionary definition should go

Copying dictionary definitions wholesale is inappropriate for Wikipedia because (1) we have Wikitionary for that and (2) we may have a possible copyright violation. Citing Black's and quoting a couple of words is fair use. Copying entire dictionary entries out of Black's is not fair use. Any reason why I shouldn't delete the entire dicdef? --Coolcaesar 07:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add these?

Terminology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_numbering

Electronic Discovery

TIFF files

Concordance, Summation, DBTextworks

Services - www.lit.com, www.stratify.com, etc...

[edit] This article needs work

It looks like someone put their outline summarizing the FRCP in here. That's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I think for most laypersons that's too much detail. Even Joseph Glannon doesn't go through the rules like that! --Coolcaesar 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I traced the edit history and it looks like User:Saw192837 put in most of that garbage from the FRCP. Either Saw192837 is not a lawyer or is not very bright. No intelligent lawyer teaches or discusses discovery (or any matter in civil procedure, for that matter) in a mechanical sequence straight from the structure of the rules. You start with the BIG PICTURE (i.e., here is the public policy underlying discovery, here is the basic chronological sequence, here is how discovery fits into how you properly litigate a case) and then quote bits and pieces from the rules as necessary to show how the system of discovery is codified into the rules. If someone doesn't give me a good reason soon to keep the rules in here, I'm going to dump them and rewrite this pigpen from scratch in a month or two. --Coolcaesar 06:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)