Discovery and Disclosure and it's Scope in Civil Procedure of Iran and America

Document Type : Scientific Research

Author

PHD in Private Law, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

The issue of providing evidence in civil proceedings has always been of great importance, and in this regard, according to an ancient and comprehensive rule, the burden of proof is on the claimant, however, sometimes a person invokes an evidence that is in the possession of the other party or a third party. In this hypothesis, the mechanism of discovery and diclosure can be used in order to obtain an evidence, in fact, disclosure of evidence is a process whereby at the request of one of the parties to the lawsuit, the other party or a third party is obliged to provide evidence and information related to the lawsuit that it owns, controls, or possesses, in favor of the applicant. Now, the issue is whether a person is obliged to provide and disclose any evidence he has, or whether there is a restriction and limitation in this regard. In American law, although the scope of disclosure of evidence is widely accepted and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a wide range of information, the disclosure of evidence will not be without exceptions and limitations, because some information and evidence have been excluded from the scope of disclosure. for example, information exchanged between the lawyer and the client has been excluded from the discovery of evidence. In Iranian law, as in American law, there are some of these restrictions, for example, Article 30 of the Law on Advocacy, which prohibits a lawyer from disclosing client information.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Anderson, T., Schum, D., & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of evidence. Cambridge University Press.
Bevan, N. R. (2008). Civil law and litigation for Paralegal. Linda Schreiber.
Dibafar, Soheila, Morteza, Shahbazinia, and Fereydoun Nahrini. (No date). “The law Governing Evidence of Claim in Private International Law (A Comparative Study in Iranian and English Law)”. Quarterly Journal of Comparative Law Research, Vol.24, No. 3, p. 71, quoted by Seyyed Mohsen Sadrzadeh Afshar, Abdullah Shams, Abdullah Khodabakhshi. (In Persian).
Erickson, J. (2019). Bespoke discovery. Rchmond School of Law, 71(6).
Field, R., Kaplan, B., & Kevin, C. (2020). Civil procedure (9th edition ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Ghomashi, Saeed. (2006).  “Investigation of the Crime of Disclosure of Professional Secrets”. Journal of Litigation, No. 58, Year 10. (In Persian).
Glannon, J. (2019). The Glannon Guide to civil procedure (7th edition ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Hazard, G. C., & Taruffo, M. (1993). American Civil Procedure. Yale University Press.
Katouzian, Nasser.  (2011).  Lessons from Specific Contracts. Volume 2, Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publications. 16th Edition.  (In Persian).
Katouzian, Nasser. (2000).  Introduction to the Science of Law. 34th Edition, Tehran, Publishing Sahami Company. (In Persian).
Katouzian, Nasser. (2011).  Proof and Evidence. Volume 1, Mizan Publications, 7th Edition. (In Persian).
Kerly, P., Banker, J., & Sukys, P. (2014). Civil Litigation (8th edition ed.). Cengage Learning.
Robert, R., & Labbe, A. (2015). The Clergy-Penitent Privileg: An overview. FDCC Quarterly.
Scheindlin, S. A. (2009). Electronic discovery and digital evidence (2th edition ed.). West Academic Publishing.
Shams, Abdullah. (2014).  Rules of Evidence.  Derak Publications. 25th Edition. (In Persian).
Shams, Abdullah.  (2014).  Rules of Civil Procedure. Volume 3, Derak Publications. 25th edition. (In Persian).
Spahn, T. E. (2013). A Practitioner’s Summary Guide to the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine. Mc Guirewoods LLP.
Summers, R. (1999). “Formal Legal Truth and Substantive Truth in Judicial Fact-Finding. Their Justified Divergence in Same Particular Cases, Cornell Law Faculty publication”. Law and Philosophy.
Ware, S. J. (2016). “The centrist Case Against Current (Conservative) Aribitration Law”. Florida Law Rewiev, 68.
Wittaker, L. (2000). The Priest-Penitent Privileged: Its Constitutionality and Doctorine. Regent University Law Review, 13(145).

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics