Should I search for more documents after my deposition to counter silly theories?

[fpbear]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I had my lengthy deposition where the defendant asked me to identify a lot of photos they took that reveal their strategy of placing blame on a variety of weak theories (it was caused by anything, and everything, other than defendant's obvious gross negligence). Some of them are almost laughable.

I have a number of documents and photos I can uncover that would strike down the majority of these theories. I can take new photos that would show evidence to the contrary as well. These were not part of the original discovery because their theories appear rather unrelated and out there in left field.

Should I spend time uncovering such evidence to counter their minutia? Or if I produce a bunch of new stuff might it expose me to having to go through another deposition or some other downside? Is it generally important to come up with such evidence to strike down all the little defense theories during trial, or instead is it more likely that my attorney would just focus on the main points of our case and avoid being dragged into the minutia that the defendant is presenting?

To me it seems like the defendant's approach to this case might be to overwhelm the jury with alternative theories so that the main point gets blurred losing focus.

I have mainly time this holiday weekend to look for such evidence and my attorney is on vacation, not available to answer this question for me at the moment.

 

[justalayman]

I have a number of documents and photos I can uncover that would strike down the majority of these theories. I can take new photos that would show evidence to the contrary as well. These were not part of the original discovery because their theories appear rather unrelated and out there in left field.

so, when they requested discovery you felt these other pictures were not relevant but suddenly after the deposition they are? Is this a case where magic is involved? Poof, they are now magically transformed to being pertinent when once they were not.

 

[fpbear]

so, when they requested discovery you felt these other pictures were not relevant but suddenly after the deposition they are? Is this a case where magic is involved? Poof, they are now magically transformed to being pertinent when once they were not.

That is a good question, but for the most part it would involve taking new photos; for example taking photos from a different perspective to show how two things are separated by a very large distance. Or in some instances, uncovering documents that apply to the oddball theory, but which no sensible person would think has any relation to the case (unless you really stretch your mind trying to make some connection).

 

[Willlyjo]

That is a good question, but for the most part it would involve taking new photos; for example taking photos from a different perspective to show how two things are separated by a very large distance. Or in some instances, uncovering documents that apply to the oddball theory, but which no sensible person would think has any relation to the case (unless you really stretch your mind trying to make some connection).

I can sympathize with you in regard to the seemingly senseless discovery issues with the Defendant's Counsel. If they are coming up with all these odd ball theories, it simply points to the fact they don't have much of a defense to put up against you. However, if you have anything that can rebut anything they have that they think is important, you definitely should submit it as evidence.

I'm really curious as to how they answered the Complaint. It seems that lots of Discovery nonsense could have been avoided with a Motion to Strike.

 

[ecmst12]

Don't start multiple threads on the same situation!

 

[las365]

Yes, you are allowed to supplement your discovery responses - and you should, because if you don't produce it, you generally can't use it in trial (if the case goes that far). Assemble the evidence and get it to your attorney, who will make the decision of whether it should be produced.

If you are talking about showing the distance between fixed objects on the ground, try using Google Earth to get aerial photos.

 

[fpbear]

Good info Willyjo and las365, thanks. Sounds like I should work on gathering up more photos and docs this weekend to give my attorney. I am not sure though, if this might just be a trick of some kind.. a clever strategy they are using where they don't really believe in their oddball theories, but trying to use some clever strategy either for discovery or for diluting the jury's focus during trial.