After a lawsuit is filed, the parties are entitled to learn what their opponents know about the case. Specifically, each party can schedule depositions, send written questions called “interrogatories,” inspect documents and other tangible evidence, and demand that certain facts and other things be admitted without a trial. In some states, these procedures are referred to as “discovery,” and in others, as “disclosure.” The names may be different, but the rules are basically the same.
The Dog Bite Lawsuit Forms by Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips, the author of dogbitelaw.com, contains a complete set of dog bite interrogatories, requests for admissions, demands for production of documents, and deposition questions. These are good for every state, and are used by victims’ lawyers throughout the USA.
The basic rules of discovery in a dog bite case
Each party in the lawsuit is required to respond to requests for discovery. Failure to respond may result in substantial penalties, from fines all the way to losing the case.
Responses to discovery have to be verified in some manner. In states like California, the party (not his attorney) must sign a form under penalty of perjury that confirms that the responses are true and correct. Some states require that the verification form be notarized. Some states require a party to supplement its responses with information learned later.
The scope of discovery is subject to limitations. The subject matter can be very broad and therefore obtrusive; if overly broad or obtrusive, however, the responding party can obtain a court order that remedies the situation.
The number of interrogatories, requests for admission, and demands for production of documentary and tangible evidence usually is limited. For example, in California a party can submit only 35 specially drafted interrogatories unless the party’s attorney submits a declaration setting forth why a greater number would be justified. (See California Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 2030.010 et seq.) California also allows each party to serve the Judicial Council’s form interrogatories as many times as necessary, as well as a supplemental interrogatory twice before the trial setting and a third time after it. A supplemental interrogatory is necessary in a state like California that does not require a party to provide new information acquired after the party responded to prior interrogatories.
Objections may be made to discovery requests. The type of objection and how it must be made are set forth in the civil procedure laws of each state. For California, see T. Bloomfield, L. DeArmas and W. Karns, Effective Use of Objections in Responding to Interrogatories.
To learn about litigation in general, see Litigation.
When to object to a subpoena for medical records
Subpoenas for medical records are normally used in dog bite lawsuit. The victim’s attorney needs to know if the client is aware of anything in their medical records that could suggest their symptoms or treatment did not result from the dog attack. For example, in a case where a dog knocked a woman to the sidewalk, causing a serious hip injury, it later emerged that the woman had injured the same hip in a car accident a few months earlier and was already suing the car’s driver while also suing the dog owner. The first issue, therefore, is whether the client is aware of anything in the records that would hurt their dog bite case.
Another aspect of the subpoenas concerns the client’s right to privacy. Anything truly unrelated to the incident is entitled to protection. However, medical records often do not distinguish between symptoms or conditions related to different incidents. For instance, if a client was bitten on the face and also had cancer on the face, references to both conditions would appear in the same records.
The client might have unrelated medical conditions that could be revealed in the documents that have been subpoenaed. In theory, the defense is not entitled to learn about these unrelated conditions. However, the client must consider whether keeping this information private is essential. Defense attorneys are particularly sensitive to anything suggesting that information is being concealed to gain an advantage. If there were an attempt to hide an embarrassing condition, for example, the client’s deposition would likely include many questions about it—precisely what the client would not want. Conversely, if the condition were disclosed, there would be nothing further to inquire about.
In the same vein, a dog bite case is unlikely to go to trial, so there is very little risk that the public would become aware of the client’s unrelated conditions. Even if the case goes to trial, the defense would not be permitted to discuss anything beyond the bite wounds and any other injuries inflicted by the dog.
It is also important to consider the cost implications. The client would not want to receive the final accounting for the case and find that much of the money was spent fighting over irrelevant matters. The attorney can pursue aggressive litigation, but ultimately, the client would bear the costs.
In conclusion, a client must help the legal team understand what truly needs to be protected so efforts can be focused accordingly. Transparency tends to build credibility so a case can be resolved more quickly, without costly formal proceedings. The eye needs to be kept on the goal, not sideshows over discovery.