- 7 - Petitioner wishes to depose Darwish to test the extent of his knowledge and his veracity with respect to the allegations he has previously made, and to determine whether he claims to know of additional information regarding the issues in this case. Petitioners also wish to depose Darwish to determine whether he has any information, including the names of other potential witnesses, who can shed light on the allegations he has made. We, however, are satisfied that these reasons are insufficient in the circumstances of these cases to meet the standard imposed by Rule 75 for nonconsensual depositions. First, underlying Rule 75 is the principle that it provides for an extraordinary method of discovery and therefore should be available only where there exists a specific and compelling basis for its use. The examples contained in the Rule itself and in the above-quoted comments support such an interpretation. In each illustration given, the requesting party was seeking specific and precise factual information essential to that party’s case. Conversely, none of the examples was premised on an inchoate hope of uncovering some vaguely defined form of potentially useful information. It follows that Rule 75 does not sanction “fishing expeditions”. In a similar vein, we are satisfied that Rule 75 is not intended to serve as a substitute for cross-examination at trial. Rule 75 is an appropriate vehicle for obtaining particular information from the sole source where that information is likely to be found; it does not afford an opportunity to question aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011