- 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 a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011