CONTROLLING DISCOVERY ABUSE: A MICROCOSM OF PROCEDURAL REFORM

Abstract

This article examines a recent judicial attempt to prevent irrelevant questions in oral examinations for discovery, in response to perceived problems of abuse. It suggests that this response-a microcosm of procedural reform-is unlikely to work, and may make the problems worse. The article considers that the role of the oral examination for discovery in civil litigation may, in many respects, be unsatisfactory. It suggests that any approach to the problems must be directed by adequate empirical knowledge of the effects of change in practice, and fully articulated ideals of the purposes of civil lawsuits.