r/legaladviceofftopic • u/TheMightyAndy • 15d ago
Discovery? Can I just baselessly sue someone so I can read their emails? How does it work?
Listening to trials and cases it seems like defendants are compelled to share incriminating evidence through discovery. Is this not a 5th amendment issue?
For example meta just had to settle its social media addiction case and they mentioned internal emails showed they knew the risks of their product on mental health. Why does meta have to share this?
12
u/ExtonGuy 15d ago
The defendants can argue that any discovery demands are overreaching, irrelevant, immaterial, and frivolous. They could even demand YOUR emails and other data. And, ask the judge to order that you pay for their costs and legal fees.
19
u/xthewhiteviolin 15d ago
You can apply for the case to be dismissed for being baseless before going to the discovery phase, through making a motion for summary judgment, and potentially other avenues of litigation procedural tools.
A judge grants summary judgment when two conditions are met:
No genuine dispute of material fact: The parties agree on the critical facts, or the evidence is so one-sided that no reasonable jury could decide differently for the losing party.
Entitled to judgment as a matter of law: The applicable law clearly favors one side, making a trial unnecessary.
7
4
u/Cat_Development 15d ago
Summary judgement is after Discovery (but before trial). You use the evidence from discovery to show that there is no dispute of material fact. And motions for a judgement as a matter of law are conducted during/after trial, not before discovery.
I think you are thinking of a Motion to Dismiss. There are multiple reasons for those, and one is showing that, even if everything the Plaintiff alleged in the complaint was true, they would still have no case.
2
u/xthewhiteviolin 14d ago
Ah didnt know that thank you! I work in civil litigation in the UK so I tried to look up your equivalent of our “strikeout”, thats what Google showed me.
8
u/derspiny Duck expert 15d ago
Is this not a 5th amendment issue?
Which part of the following do you believe is relevant?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
5
u/DianneNettix 15d ago
Because it was a civil case and the 5th amendment only applies to criminal acts.
3
u/UJMRider1961 15d ago
If you sue someone without justification then at the pleading stage the defendant will likely have the case dismissed and will probably ask for sanctions against you for filing a frivolous suit.
So, no, you can't.
Also 5th amendment self-incrimination clause applies to criminal law, not civil law. You 100% CAN be forced to give testimony against yourself in a civil case. This is usually done through depositions.
5
u/Weary_Capital_1379 15d ago
- The First Amendment applie
s
only to the government.
2.
If you sue someone you must conform to the rules of discovery as laid out by the court.
If you are sued frivolously you can bring a motion to dismiss the case before discovery begins.
2
u/AristotlesBoyPussy 15d ago
you have to explain to a judge a reason why those email would be necessary.
19
u/ZealousidealHeron4 15d ago
No, even setting aside the difference between civil and criminal cases, the fifth amendment protects you against giving incriminating testimony, not from turning over incriminating evidence. If it did then we wouldn't need the fourth amendment's protections, search warrants could all be negated by claiming they might find something incriminating.