7 ms·

In China I recall that "the burden of proof was on the parties" and both sides were asked to submit all relevant evidence to the court. Then there were a coupl

In China I recall that "the burden of proof was on the parties" and both sides were asked to submit all relevant evidence to the court. Then there were a couple of meetings where my lawyer met with the other side's lawyer to review the evidence. If you're the plaintiff and you have evidence that supports your version of events, you give it all to the court. If you're the defendant and you have exculpatory evidence, or anything that shows that the case is frivolous, you give it all to the court. The judge can then ask for more evidence, or utilize what's provided. My legal team didn't need to sift through ten years of emails in order to find a few needles hidden in the haystack. The process wasn't adversarial. The parties can't use "discovery" to get trade secrets or proprietary information. And the costs were near enough to zero. I wouldn't even say that it's a "better" system. I'd characterize US-style discovery as simply broken, and the Chinese system as something that works in a common sense way.

ajross 2y ago
> If you're the plaintiff and you have evidence that supports your version of events, you give it all to the court. If you're the defendant and you have exculpatory evidence, or anything that shows that the case is frivolous, you give it all to the court. Yes, but what if you're the plaintiff/defendant and the other party has evidence in your favor? How do you get it before the court? That is what discovery is for. Honestly it just sounds like you had an easy case tried in China and a hard one tried in the US and are making some really broad assertions about the two legal systems based on a small sample size.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  > Yes, but what if you're the plaintiff/defendant and the other party has evidence in your favor? How do you get it before the court? That is what discovery is for. What do you know of this evidence and how do you know about it? > Honestly it just sounds like you had an easy case tried in China and a hard one tried in the US and are making some really broad assertions about the two legal systems based on a small sample size. lol, no. It was actually the other way around. The US case was completely open-and-shut, whereas the Chinese case hinged on a matter of sensitive technology with military or "dual use" potential and it could have gotten ugly. I'll swear on whatever you like that I could hardly wait to get our US case in front of a US judge, but it was practically impossible. There are just so many absurd pretrial hoops to jump through. And all of them expensive.
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
    The Tesla ran into me while I was crossing the crosswalk and then took off. I was able to capture their license plate. We tracked them down and were able to ask them, but they denied that they had done this. I sued them in civil court to cover my medical expenses. I happen to know what Teslas keep a video log of these. The defendant wouldn’t provide it willingly until we went into discovery and they were compelled to provide it, which made my case. This is but one of infinite examples of the other party having evidence helpful to the other side and harmful to themselves.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      > I happen to know what Teslas keep a video log of these. You provide the court with that information, and the judge presiding over the case can (and almost surely will, if you're correct,) ask for the logs. If they don't provide them upon request, they're hit with a adverse inference, just as they would be if they withheld documents in discovery. It's plain common sense. Now, it's true that "you don't know what you don't know" and that discovery can be an investigative process, but for the vast majority of cases it's totally unnecessary. And, in very many cases, discovery will actually impede access to justice. In court systems without discovery, judges tend to take on a slightly more investigative role, besides.
      - MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
        The 95 year old lifetime appointment judge with dementia and cataracts: “Cars have cameras you say? In my day we only had daguerreotypes. We wore an onion on our belts, the style at the time. Request denied.”
        pests 2y ago
        This is an old tired stereotype. Judges are perfectly able to handle complex novel concepts such as technology. The judge before the oracle c. google case learned to program to gain insight, for example.
- cwmma 2y ago
  In most countries it's the judge who oversees discovery not the rival lawyers to avoid the whole 'using discovery as a weapon to waste your opponents money' issue while still allowing for the right evidence to come to light.
  - ajross 2y ago
    That seems like a distinction without meaning. "Rival lawyers" don't "oversee" discovery. They make requests to the judge, who decides on their validity and issues orders. It's just a formalized suggestion.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      In US Federal court, rival lawyers don't make requests to the judge, they make requests of each other. The judge is merely a referee, who adjudicates disputes that arise as part of the process. Example: Red-Team Lawyer: "Provide us with all emails from 1/1/2010 through 1/1/2020, inclusive, that include or mention [product x] or are of relevance to its research, development, production, or marketing." Blue-Team Lawyer: "That's overly broad and many of those emails contain proprietary confidential and trade-secret information, which is protected. My client will not provide them." Judge, intervening after objections are filed: "Counsel, under FRCP 26(b)(1), discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case. Red Team, narrow the timeframe to 2015–2020 and limit the search to emails involving R&D leads and marketing executives. Blue Team, designate confidential portions under FRCP 26(c) as 'Attorneys’ Eyes Only' and produce a privilege log for withheld items. Failure to comply may result in sanctions under FRCP 37." Every single part of this costs money and takes time. It usually takes a judge ~1-3 months to rule on discovery disputes. Filing the dispute is non-trivial. And "designating confidential portions" can provide junior attorneys with months of work. That's hardly even the tip of the iceberg. There are so many sneaky tactics you can use in discovery that entire books have been written about them. For instance: https://jamespublishing.com/product/guerrilla-discovery/ https://jamespublishing.com/product/guerrilla-discovery/ Whereas if both sides just provide their evidence to a judge's office which compiles them into an account, all of this cost and effort is spared.
LiquidSky 2y ago
>the court attained the right outcome, and I won the case. Ha, well, you would say that.

ajross 2y ago

> If you're the plaintiff and you have evidence that supports your version of events, you give it all to the court. If you're the defendant and you have exculpatory evidence, or anything that shows that the case is frivolous, you give it all to the court. Yes, but what if you're the plaintiff/defendant and the other party has evidence in your favor? How do you get it before the court? That is what discovery is for. Honestly it just sounds like you had an easy case tried in China and a hard one tried in the US and are making some really broad assertions about the two legal systems based on a small sample size.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
> Yes, but what if you're the plaintiff/defendant and the other party has evidence in your favor? How do you get it before the court? That is what discovery is for. What do you know of this evidence and how do you know about it? > Honestly it just sounds like you had an easy case tried in China and a hard one tried in the US and are making some really broad assertions about the two legal systems based on a small sample size. lol, no. It was actually the other way around. The US case was completely open-and-shut, whereas the Chinese case hinged on a matter of sensitive technology with military or "dual use" potential and it could have gotten ugly. I'll swear on whatever you like that I could hardly wait to get our US case in front of a US judge, but it was practically impossible. There are just so many absurd pretrial hoops to jump through. And all of them expensive.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
  The Tesla ran into me while I was crossing the crosswalk and then took off. I was able to capture their license plate. We tracked them down and were able to ask them, but they denied that they had done this. I sued them in civil court to cover my medical expenses. I happen to know what Teslas keep a video log of these. The defendant wouldn’t provide it willingly until we went into discovery and they were compelled to provide it, which made my case. This is but one of infinite examples of the other party having evidence helpful to the other side and harmful to themselves.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    > I happen to know what Teslas keep a video log of these. You provide the court with that information, and the judge presiding over the case can (and almost surely will, if you're correct,) ask for the logs. If they don't provide them upon request, they're hit with a adverse inference, just as they would be if they withheld documents in discovery. It's plain common sense. Now, it's true that "you don't know what you don't know" and that discovery can be an investigative process, but for the vast majority of cases it's totally unnecessary. And, in very many cases, discovery will actually impede access to justice. In court systems without discovery, judges tend to take on a slightly more investigative role, besides.
    - MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
      The 95 year old lifetime appointment judge with dementia and cataracts: “Cars have cameras you say? In my day we only had daguerreotypes. We wore an onion on our belts, the style at the time. Request denied.”
      - pests 2y ago
        This is an old tired stereotype. Judges are perfectly able to handle complex novel concepts such as technology. The judge before the oracle c. google case learned to program to gain insight, for example.
cwmma 2y ago
In most countries it's the judge who oversees discovery not the rival lawyers to avoid the whole 'using discovery as a weapon to waste your opponents money' issue while still allowing for the right evidence to come to light.
- ajross 2y ago
  That seems like a distinction without meaning. "Rival lawyers" don't "oversee" discovery. They make requests to the judge, who decides on their validity and issues orders. It's just a formalized suggestion.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    In US Federal court, rival lawyers don't make requests to the judge, they make requests of each other. The judge is merely a referee, who adjudicates disputes that arise as part of the process. Example: Red-Team Lawyer: "Provide us with all emails from 1/1/2010 through 1/1/2020, inclusive, that include or mention [product x] or are of relevance to its research, development, production, or marketing." Blue-Team Lawyer: "That's overly broad and many of those emails contain proprietary confidential and trade-secret information, which is protected. My client will not provide them." Judge, intervening after objections are filed: "Counsel, under FRCP 26(b)(1), discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case. Red Team, narrow the timeframe to 2015–2020 and limit the search to emails involving R&D leads and marketing executives. Blue Team, designate confidential portions under FRCP 26(c) as 'Attorneys’ Eyes Only' and produce a privilege log for withheld items. Failure to comply may result in sanctions under FRCP 37." Every single part of this costs money and takes time. It usually takes a judge ~1-3 months to rule on discovery disputes. Filing the dispute is non-trivial. And "designating confidential portions" can provide junior attorneys with months of work. That's hardly even the tip of the iceberg. There are so many sneaky tactics you can use in discovery that entire books have been written about them. For instance: https://jamespublishing.com/product/guerrilla-discovery/ https://jamespublishing.com/product/guerrilla-discovery/ Whereas if both sides just provide their evidence to a judge's office which compiles them into an account, all of this cost and effort is spared.

LiquidSky 2y ago

>the court attained the right outcome, and I won the case. Ha, well, you would say that.