Discovery question

[Bloodoak]

Many states seem to think it does. Hence the setting of child support based on the income of both parents.

My point exactly. This, in my opinion, can paint the proper portait.

 

[Just Blue]

I am looking for more information. That's all. It's like my googling medical symptoms before going to the doctor.

I get it...but it would be irresponsible of any of the volunteers here, even the attorney, to advise you when you already have an attorney. Just ask your attorney.

 

[Litigator22]

I answered your question in a very concise way. You are welcome.

Then what is your "answer" to the Georgia Supreme Court's ruling in Ballard vs. Meyers, 275 GA. 819, 572 S. E. 2d 572 (2002) wherein it held as reversible error the lower court's refusal to admit into the trial record documentary evidence offered by the defendant to impeach plaintiff's testimony on grounds that it was not disclosed in pretrial discover.

" . . . the pretrial discovery requirement DOES NOT extend to documentary evidence upon which the party may possibly rely defensively for impeachment purposes". (Emphasis added)

"The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth." OCGA § 24-1-2. Consistent with this statutory mandate, 'the policy of Georgia law is to admit evidence, even if its admissibility is doubtful, because it is more dangerous to suppress the truth than to allow a loophole for falsehood.' "(cases cited) "

"The trial court's ruling in this case is at odds with this principle, since it authorizes the exclusion of relevant impeaching evidence and allows the credibility of a crucial witness to go unchallenged. Clearly, this subordination of the discovery of the truth to a mere procedural device is erroneous. (citing cases). The credibility of the witnesses is a matter which should be resolved by the jurors who have heard all of the relevant evidence, and not by the text of the pretrial order. . . "

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

My point exactly. This, in my opinion, can paint the proper portait.

But that isn't what the discovery process is for.

 

[Zigner]

Then what is your "answer" to ...

Irrelevant - that wasn't the question that was asked.

 

[quincy]

Then what is your "answer" to the Georgia Supreme Court's ruling in Ballard vs. Meyers, 275 GA. 819, 572 S. E. 2d 572 (2002) wherein it held as reversible error the lower court's refusal to admit into the trial record documentary evidence offered by the defendant to impeach plaintiff's testimony on grounds that it was not disclosed in pretrial discover.

" . . . the pretrial discovery requirement DOES NOT extend to documentary evidence upon which the party may possibly rely defensively for impeachment purposes". (Emphasis added)

"The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth." OCGA § 24-1-2. Consistent with this statutory mandate, 'the policy of Georgia law is to admit evidence, even if its admissibility is doubtful, because it is more dangerous to suppress the truth than to allow a loophole for falsehood.' "(cases cited) "

"The trial court's ruling in this case is at odds with this principle, since it authorizes the exclusion of relevant impeaching evidence and allows the credibility of a crucial witness to go unchallenged. Clearly, this subordination of the discovery of the truth to a mere procedural device is erroneous. (citing cases). The credibility of the witnesses is a matter which should be resolved by the jurors who have heard all of the relevant evidence, and not by the text of the pretrial order. . . "

Georgia is not Tennessee.

 

[stealth2]

I am looking for more information. That's all. It's like my googling medical symptoms before going to the doctor.

Problem is - there are details you cannot (and should not) share here that could affect the answers We really can only deal in generalities.

 

[stealth2]

My point exactly. This, in my opinion, can paint the proper portait.

Not likely to determine custody. But have at it.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Then what is your "answer" to the Georgia Supreme Court's ruling in Ballard vs. Meyers, 275 GA. 819, 572 S. E. 2d 572 (2002) wherein it held as reversible error the lower court's refusal to admit into the trial record documentary evidence offered by the defendant to impeach plaintiff's testimony on grounds that it was not disclosed in pretrial discover.

" . . . the pretrial discovery requirement DOES NOT extend to documentary evidence upon which the party may possibly rely defensively for impeachment purposes". (Emphasis added)

"The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth." OCGA § 24-1-2. Consistent with this statutory mandate, 'the policy of Georgia law is to admit evidence, even if its admissibility is doubtful, because it is more dangerous to suppress the truth than to allow a loophole for falsehood.' "(cases cited) "

"The trial court's ruling in this case is at odds with this principle, since it authorizes the exclusion of relevant impeaching evidence and allows the credibility of a crucial witness to go unchallenged. Clearly, this subordination of the discovery of the truth to a mere procedural device is erroneous. (citing cases). The credibility of the witnesses is a matter which should be resolved by the jurors who have heard all of the relevant evidence, and not by the text of the pretrial order. . . "

(1) OP is in Tennessee, not Georgia.

(2) OP wants to have a "Matlock moment" - submitting damning "evidence" without allowing the other party a heads up that such evidence exists.

Both parties should have equal access to the "facts". The STBX and her legal counsel have a right to know what OP's allegations are, and on what basis he plans on making those allegations.

My point exactly. This, in my opinion, can paint the proper portait.

Your problem is, the "proper portrait" might smear you as well, as being difficult, disingenuous, and maybe even lacking credibility.

As the majority of seniors have suggested, present what you have to your lawyer, and work with your lawyer.

I fail to see what bearing your STBX's employment would have on child custody .

Your historical division of parenting duties/time might have some bearing on child custody, but not who makes more/less. It is in the best interest of the child for the dissolution of the marriage to minimize traumatic changes and upheaval, and to generally put the child first.

 

[Litigator22]

Irrelevant - that wasn't the question that was asked.

Excuse me, but Ballard vs. Meyers is explicitly relevant to the OP's inquiry, to-wit:

Is there any law that lets me submit evidence not submitted in discovery?

 

[quincy]

Excuse me, but Ballard vs. Meyers is explicitly relevant to the OP's inquiry, to-wit:

Do you have anything from Bloodoak’s state of Tennessee? Ballard v. Meyers is a Georgia Supreme Court case.

 

[zddoodah]

I have an attorney. I am just trying to get other opinions.

If your opinion of your attorney is such that the input of anonymous strangers on the internet (who may or may not be attorneys and may or may not know anything about the laws of your state) are of value to you, then you might want to give some thought to the advisability of continuing with your attorney.

I am looking for more information. That's all. It's like my googling medical symptoms before going to the doctor.

That's a bad analogy. What you're doing is like googling medical symptoms after having consulted with and received advice from a doctor.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Excuse me, but Ballard vs. Meyers is explicitly relevant to the OP's inquiry, to-wit:

It is not relevant to the OP's inquiry because the OP's case is in Tennessee and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia are, of course not binding on the Tennessee courts. Moreover, as the decision is interpreting Georgia law on discovery the decision is likely not even terribly useful for persuasive value in the unlikely event the Tennessee courts have not spoken on the issue since Tennessee and Georgia have different discovery rules.

 

[Zigner]

Excuse me, but Ballard vs. Meyers is explicitly relevant to the OP's inquiry, to-wit:

Aside from your use of a decision from the wrong state, you failed to address the OP's FIRST question, to-wit:

How can I avoid discovery?

 

[Maymee]

Provide the proof of her actual income to your attorney who can then counter her testimony with such. There will not, however, be any penalties from the Court. Perjury in family court is more the rule than an exception.