33rd / 424th District Courts

There is an interesting article on a site regarding emails and confidentiality, entitled Email, Privilege, Condifential Information and Inadvertent Disclosures by Rebecca J. Foote of the firm of Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P., New York.

(From the Dennis Kennedy blog, this is an interesting area that will continue to grow steadily, even out here in the boonies. The reference to Discovery Resources Org will take you to some fascinating discussion and resources regarding "e-discovery" which -- like it or not -- you have to come to grips with. /glj)

DiscoveryResources.org and My New Column with George Socha - I'm writing a new column with e-discovery expert George Socha on DiscoveryResources.org. The first column, a survey of today's e-discovery landscape has just been published. For those in Chicago this week, the ABA TechShow will have a major program on electronic discovery. [

August 2002 article by Richard E. Best. Thought-provoking, or it should be.
FindLaw's Modern Practice - Electronic Discovery Rules Needed

What is a "witness statement?" Some statements are obvious such as someone interviews a witness and takes down a written statement that is then signed by the witness. Easy.

Take a case of a lot of correspondence between parties, documents exchanged, etc. Some of it may form the basis of the suit such as whether a contract was made. Some of it may be a "statement" made by someone who later becomes a witness, party or not. Is that a "witness statement" as contemplated by the rule? It may become admissible as a statement against interest or for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement, but is it a "witness statement?"

Texaco v. Hon. John Dominquez (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1991) precludes allowing P to "rummage" D's files merely because P believes the culling of responsive materials by counsel for D may not have uncovered everything that should have been produced. In spite of acknowledging P's frustration, the court spoke directly to the "no fishing expedition" concepts of modern discovery.

However, it also dealt with a trial court order for D (Texaco) to provide "a more responsive answer" to certain requests for production. The order did not specify how D must be more responsive. The court then, in this case involving a large number (100,000) of documents, stated:

Rule 194.2 T.R.C.P. provides in part for disclosure of
" . . . (d) the amount and any method of calculating economic damages; . . . ."

The Court construes that provision as follows: For any number that you can add up or calculate, tell us the number and how you got it.

In other words, tell the inquiring party the basis for that claim regardless of whether the claim is property damage, lost profits, an offset, claim for reimbursement or otherwise. Tote it up and tell 'em.