This California stipulation runs counter to Rule 26 Subdivision (e) of the Federal Civil Procedure which provides for supplementation, and requires a person to correct any submitted information as it is necessary. Additionally, the district of Columbia adheres to the federal rules with some modifications; there maybe variances in deadlines, and litigants are relegated to the Districts Superior court. There can be 35 interrogatories, including parts and sub-parts, maybe put forth by any of the involved parties. There is no requirement for a “privilege log” (Federal Rule 26 (b) (5) was not adopted by the D. C.
Superior Court)1. Albeit the presence of uniformity does not persist (as a matter of fact, the state of Louisiana, while possessing a civil procedure, its legal system was influenced by the Napoleonic code, and is one of the few US states which has a civil law system), in an adoption of the Federal Civil procedure from state to state, the prevailing common law strategy of the code compels one to integrate all the lines drawn and reasons given, and determine what the law is, then one applies that law to the facts.
As we see in the discovery case of Finley v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, 20081Subdivision (b) is said to be the soul of the discovery rule, and it dictates what is discoverable and what is limited. Anything that is relevant is available for the other party to request, as long as it is not privileged or other wide protected. (5). , generally prohibits the discovery of any material legally privileged (attorney-client, doctor-patient etc. ) and requires the production of a “privilege log” which describes the privileged information or material in a way that allows others to see that (if) it is privileged, but does not divulge the privileged material.
See honza, 2007 WL 4591917 (Tex. App Dec. 28, 2007)3WL50984 N. D. California February 22, 2008). In Accordance with Rule 26 (a) (1)2 initial disclosures; Hartford indicated it was disclosing a copy of the administrative record related to the plaintiffs disability claim, and produced among other things copies of the claim file, electronic notes, and surveillance videos conducted by Dempsey. Due to what Hartford calls “an administrative oversight”, the videos produced did not contain the footage of the plaintiff in the kitchen.
Hartford later produced the kitchen video, in a supplemental disclosure under Rule 26 (a). Hartford argued that it complied with its usual procedure and that a reasonable search was done, and that as soon as it discovered that the full video had not been disclosed it complied with Rule 26 (e)3 and supplemented its earlier disclosure. The plaintiff sought sanctions, alleging that Hartford failed to disclose the kitchen video in violation of Rule 26 (a), that Hartford’s attorney certified Hartford’s initial and incomplete disclosure in violation of Rule 26 (g)4, and that Hartford failed to produce the kitchen video in response to a particular request for production. The court granted the plaintiffs motion in part, faulting Hartford’s search for relevant evidence.
The Court found that Hartford failed to make the requisite “reasonable inquiry” required by Rule 26 (g). 5