Understanding The Legal Event Known As Examination For Discovery

Throughout history, the announcement of a discovery has usually stood for emergence into the light of something wonderful, something of value. Only one person sees great value in what gets revealed at an examination for discovery. That one person is the lawyer for the defendant in a scheduled trial.

A planned meeting gets pointed to as the examination’s purpose. That is a first-time meeting of the plaintiff and the lawyer for the defendant. The lawyer cannot wait to hear the plaintiff’s statement. That member of the legal profession (the lawyer) has even arranged to get a transcript of the same statement.

The transcript gets made as the defendant’s lawyer hears the plaintiff’s answers to a series of questions. There is no rule governing the number of questions that the same lawyer can ask. It is not unusual for the questioning to take up a full day, or a large part of one day.

When during the examination does the questioning lawyer make a discovery?

The discovery is not made during the course of that long session. The plaintiff’s answers get recorded, in hopes that one of them will trigger the discovery’s emergence. The defendant’s legal counsel will repeat the same questions at the trial, when the plaintiff serves as a witness.

The team working for the defendant hopes that at least one of the plaintiff’s answers during the trial will differ from the answer given earlier (at the examination for discovery). When that happens, the appropriate lawyer will pounce, and refute the different answer. That is done in order to sow a seed of doubt. By sowing enough seeds, the defendant’s lawyer can make the witness seem less credible.

Do plaintiffs get to control any aspect of the discovery-seeking examination?

Plaintiffs do have a rather limited amount of control. After all, a plaintiff’s presence is expected. Still, no one has established a fixed schedule. The plaintiff’s control derives from the fact that the schedule has not been “set in stone.”

For obvious reasons, the lawyer for the defendant does not want to make it look like the plaintiff has been questioned under duress. That would cause the jury and other members of the court to feel sorry for the stressed-out, future witness (the plaintiff). Therefore, plaintiffs have the right to request a break at any time.

Can plaintiffs actually prepare for such an examination?

The lawyer for the plaintiff can supervise a rehearsal. During that same rehearsal, the Injury Lawyer in Barrie can ask those questions that will most certainly be asked by the opposing party’s lawyer. Still, even the best lawyers cannot promise to know every inquiry that might be made by the opposing team (of lawyers). Yet a plaintiff’s ability to remember the first group of answers can reduce the chances that the opposing legal team will manage to sow a seed of doubt among the jurors.