Document Disclosure – Must documents harmful to the plaintiff/defendant be disclosed?

What is document disclosure?

Document discovery is a legal procedure that exists in almost every lawsuit and aims to make the parties disclose and allow them to actually review any document in their possession that is relevant to the dispute between the parties, so that neither party will be surprised during the conduct of the lawsuit.

Document discovery is carried out, in most cases, after the parties have filed all their pleadings because there is no obligation to attach all relevant evidence and documents to each Claim or Defense (except for individual proceedings such as small claims or A lawsuit in a speedy trial, where all the evidence and documents are attached to the letters of claim themselves).

The document discovery procedures are actually carried out between the parties themselves and do not involve the court in the first stage. The court will be forced to intervene if one of the parties does not comply at all or fully with the discovery procedures, so that the opposing party is forced to file a motion on the matter, so that the judge hearing the case will decide whether there is an obligation to disclose the documents in dispute or not. Motions to the court regarding the disclosure of documents are filed before the existence of Pre-trial First using Request list.

Be careful with document discovery procedures because failure to comply with them properly may lead to a ruling that you will be required to pay legal costs or, in more extreme cases, even the deletion of the statement of claim or statement of defense.

By what authority must document discovery procedures be carried out?

Document disclosure procedures within the framework Civil lawsuit or Financial claim Must comply with regulations Civil procedure, תשע"ט – 2018.

Regulations 60-57 state as follows:

57. Not later than thirty days after the last statement of claim is filed, or at such other time as the court may direct, the parties shall exchange affidavits of discovery of documents verifying the list of all documents relating to the matters in dispute that are or were in the party's possession or control and that the party has located after investigation and demand; if the document is no longer in his possession or control, he shall specify the circumstances relating thereto.

58. Within thirty days after the parties have exchanged affidavits of disclosure of documents pursuant to Regulation 57, or at another time ordered by the court, the parties shall complete the procedures for examining the documents and each party shall allow the other party to photocopy the documents or scan them at the expense of the party who requested the examination.

59.

A. A request regarding a discovery and review procedure, including a request regarding a response to a questionnaire or for discovery or review of a particular document, will be listed in the list of requests pursuant to Regulation 49(c).

on. If a claim of confidentiality is made regarding a question or document, the court may review the document to decide whether there is merit to this claim.

60.

A. Proper discovery and review procedures constitute a basic condition for the existence of a proper and fair judicial process; if the court believes that a litigant has not properly fulfilled his obligation under this chapter, it may immediately order him to pay expenses and, in special cases, even strike out his pleadings.

third. Without derogating from the provisions of sub-regulation (a), A party who fails to disclose a document that must be disclosed or who fails to comply with a request to examine a document that he has disclosed, shall not be entitled to submit the document as evidence on his behalf in that action, except with the permission of the court after it has ascertained that the party had reasonable justification for his omission, and if it concerns a document that is detrimental to the party's case, the court may order the deletion of the statement of claim or statement of defense, as the case may be, and if it has not so ordered, it shall order that he be charged with costs unless it finds special reasons not to do so.

According to the provisions of Rule 60, we see that there are two possible sanctions that the court may impose on a party who fails to comply with discovery procedures. First, the party will not be permitted to submit the document on its own behalf (however, if the party does not disclose the document, it is likely that it is a document that is harmful to that party and that it did not intend to submit it in the first place).

Second, the court is authorized to order the deletion of the statement of claim or statement of defense and impose on that party Legal expensesIn practice, the court almost never orders the deletion of the statement of claim or the statement of defense due to the lack of document discovery procedures. This is a very severe sanction and in the vast majority of cases the courts will prefer to be satisfied with awarding legal costs.

General Document Disclosure Affidavit

General disclosure of documents is the stage in which the parties reveal to each party which documents relevant to the dispute are in their possession. The disclosure of documents is carried out through a document disclosure affidavit and looks like this:

Affidavit of disclosure of specific documents

A situation may arise where the opposing party demands to receive a specific document or documents, which you may not have even mentioned in your general affidavit of disclosure of documents. This is the opposing party's right, and to the extent that the document is in your possession and is relevant to the dispute between the parties, there is a high probability that you will be forced to disclose it. Even if it is harmful to your position.

A response to a request for disclosure of specific documents must also be made by means of an affidavit. The wording of the affidavit should refer to the documents requested and detail the party's response to the request. If the party does not agree to disclose the requested document, he must specify the reason for this. If the document is not in his possession, he must state this explicitly.

Not every document must be disclosed as part of a request for specific document disclosure.

It should always be remembered that the purpose of document disclosure is not to gather evidence but to assist in discussing the issues relevant to the lawsuit. For this reason, there are a number of arguments that can be used to avoid disclosure of required documents. This is a non-exhaustive list:

1. Documents subject to confidentiality – There is no obligation to disclose documents subject to any confidentiality (for example, attorney-client privilege).
2. There is no obligation to disclose documents prepared for trial.
3. There is no obligation to disclose documents that are not relevant to the proceedings.
4. There is no obligation to disclose documents that may violate privacy.
5. There is no obligation to disclose documents that may violate a trade secret.
6. There is no obligation to disclose documents that do not exist with the party but exist with a third party (there are a number of exceptions in this regard).
7. There is no requirement to create documents to meet the requirement.
8. There is no obligation to disclose documents if locating them involves great expense and/or investment of significant resources.

In most cases, when a party objects to disclosing a specific document or documents, a motion will be filed with the court, so that the judge can decide whether there is a duty to disclose the document or documents, and if so, what the scope of disclosure is. For example: The court may order the disclosure of certain data but will allow the redaction of details that may violate privacy.

Disclosure of documents as part of a request to certify a class action lawsuit

within Request for approval of a class action lawsuit חלים כללים שונים על הליכי גילוי מסמכים. בעניין זה קובעת תקנה 4(ב) לתקנות תובענות ייצוגיות, תש"ע – 2010, כך:

(on) The court hearing the application will have the authority to issue an order for discovery and inspection of documents, provided that the following conditions are met:

(1) The documents whose disclosure is required concern questions relevant to the certification of the claim as a class action;

(2) The applicant provided initial evidentiary support regarding the existence of the conditions set forth in Section 8(a) of the Law.

(third) If the court orders the discovery and examination of documents, it may give any instruction to maintain the confidentiality of the documents that will be provided to the applicant, without derogating from the provisions of any law.

ההבדל בין בקשה לאישור תביעה ייצוגית לבין תביעה "רגילה" הוא שבקשת האישור היא שלב מקדמי, טרום תביעה. בנסיבות אלה בית המשפט מתיר לקיים הליכי גילוי מסמכים אך בצורה מצומצמת ולא באותה מידה כפי שחלים הליכים אלה במסגרת תביעה "רגילה". דוגמה לכך היא שבשלב בקשת האישור הצדדים לא מעבירים אחד לשני תצהיר גילוי מסמכים כללי, ובכל מקרה בית המשפט יעתר לדרישה לגלות מסמכים ספציפיים אך ורק אם המבקש בבקשת האישור העמיד תשתית ראייתית ראשונית לגבי קיום של התנאים הקבועים בסעיף 8(א) לחוק תובענות ייצוגיות.

Supreme Court rulings on the matter of document disclosure

The Supreme Court ruling is a ruling that is binding on lower courts. This ruling can be relied upon to substantiate a demand for disclosure of documents or to defend against it.

Disclosure procedures as part of a class action certification application

רע"א 8649/17 חברת פרטנר תקשורת נ' אלחנן תגר (פסק דין מיום 16.4.2018):

הליכי גילוי מסמכים מבוססים על התפיסה כי ביסוד ההליך השיפוטי עומדת החתירה לגילוי האמת, וכי על הליך זה להתקיים "בקלפים גלויים" (אורי גורן סוגיות בסדר דין אזרחי 237 (מהדורה שתים עשרה, 2015); להלן: גורן). המאפיינים של ההליך השיפוטי משפיעים על היקף הגילוי הראוי – כאשר בניגוד להליך אזרחי רגיל, שלב אישור התובענה כייצוגית הוא שלב מקדמי שנועד לברר אם יש מקום לנהל את התביעה כייצוגית.

…

From the characteristics and purposes of the class action proceeding, the considerations that the court must examine when hearing a request for discovery of documents submitted as part of a request to certify a claim as a class action are derived.

On the one hand, document disclosure is intended to bridge the significant power gaps and inherent information gaps that exist between the parties to the proceeding. (גורן, בעמ' 255; רע"א 8224/15 תנובה מרכז שיתופי לשיווק תוצרת חקלאית בישראל בע"מ נ' פרופ' זליכה, פסקה 14 (29.3.2016) (להלן: עניין תנובה); רע"א 8900/13 תדיראן הולדינגס בע"מ נ' הבר, פסקה 7 (27.3.2014) (להלן: עניין תדיראן); רע"א 6715/05 מחסני ערובה נעמן בע"מ נ' איזנברג, פ"ד ס(3) 264, 268 (2005); רע"א 10052/02 יפעת נ' דלק מוטורס, פ"ד נז(4) 513, 518 (2003) (להלן: עניין יפעת)); וכן, מאחר שתובענה ייצוגית מוגשת בשם קבוצת נפגעים ובגדר תכליותיה ניצבות מטרות חברתיות וציבוריות – אינטרס הקבוצה ואינטרס הציבור מהווים שיקול רלוונטי בבחינת בקשה לגילוי מסמכים בהליך הייצוגי (ראו והשוו: עניין אינסלר, פסקה 13).

מנגד, קיים חשש כי הליכי גילוי המסמכים יהפכו ל"מסע דיג" להשלמת תשתית עובדתית חסרה ויאפשרו שימוש לרעה במנגנון התובענה הייצוגית (רע"א 6996/11 קומם נ' רוזובסקי, פסקה 10 (28.8.2012) (להלן: עניין קומם); עניין יפעת, בעמ' 519). Given the various interests described, the rule is that when we are dealing with a request to certify a class action, the right to discovery of documents is relatively limited compared to the scope of the right in other civil proceedings. (רע"א 8855/15 הראל חברה לביטוח בע"מ נ' קינג, פסקה 5 (24.2.2016) (להלן: עניין קינג); רע"א 6217/13 נאור נ' תנובה מרכז שיתופי לשיווק תוצרת חקלאית בישראל בע"מ, פסקה 2 (6.10.2013)). למען הסר ספק, יובהר שהדברים האמורים בפסק דין זה באשר לגילוי מסמכים, כוחם יפה אף בנוגע לעיון בהם.

…

Thus, Regulation 4(b) of the Regulations instructs us that, as a condition for the court to grant a request for disclosure of documents at the stage of the hearing on a request for certification of a class action, the applicant must first show that the information requested by him is indeed relevant to the hearing on the request for certification and that it is capable of illuminating issues concerning the fulfillment of the threshold conditions for the certification of the action as a class action (Yifat Matter, at p. 519). In addition, when the applicant for the order is the party that filed the request for certification – as in our case – he must show that he has provided an initial evidentiary foundation for the fulfillment of the conditions set forth in Section 8(a) of the Law.

In other words, the applicant must show that the evidence presented by him establishes, even if only superficially, the possibility that his request for certification of the action as a class action will be accepted. In addition, the applicant is required to comply with the conditions and limitations that generally apply to document discovery procedures. In doing so, he must show that the information or documents are in the possession of the party to whom the order for discovery is directed; that granting the order will simplify and streamline the proceedings; and that this will not impose an unreasonable burden on the party against whom the order is directed (Tnuva, paragraph 11 and references therein).

Disclosure procedures within the framework of a lawsuit

רע"א 5452/16 מדינת ישראל – רשות מקרקעי ישראל נ' עמותת קריית נווה שלום (פסק דין מיום 8.8.2016):

לא אכביר מילים על חשיבותה של חובת הגילוי בהליך האזרחי והעקרון בדבר ניהול ההליך בקלפים פתוחים, שכן הדברים ברורים וידועים. עוד ידוע, כי תנאי ראשון ובסיסי שחייב להתקיים על מנת שתקום חובת הגילוי, הוא התנאי בדבר הרלוונטיות של המסמכים לעניין נשוא התביעה (רע"א 9322/07Gerber Products Company נ' חברת רנדי בע"מ, [פורסם בנבו] פסקה 7 (15.10.2008) (להלן: עניין גרבר)).

…

אלא, ש"לצד העקרון הבסיסי לפיו יש לגלות מסמכים רלבנטיים, קיימים גם סייגים העשויים להביא לצמצום היקפו של עקרון הגילוי" (עניין גרבר, פסקה 8). אחד הסייגים הללו הוא מידת ההכבדה על הצד שכנגד (שם). זה מכבר נפסק, כי בית המשפט רשאי שלא להיעתר לבקשה לגילוי מסמכים שהיא בלתי סבירה ועלולה להכביד על בעל הדין יתר על המידה (רע"א 6715/05 מחסני ערובה נעמן בע"מ נ' איזנברג, פ"ד ס(3) 264, 269 (2005)).

נקבע, כי "אין זה מתקבל על הדעת כי במהלך השלב המקדמי יידרש בעל דין לערוך בירורים וחקירות שונות, ודאי לא כאלו הכרוכים במאמץ רב" (שם, עמ' 271) ודוק: בין הרלוונטיות המסמכים ובין ההכבדה על הצד שכנגד ישנם יחסי גומלין: ככל שמידת ההכבדה גדולה יותר, כך יש להקפיד במידת הרלוונטיות של המסמכים; ככל שהמסמך יותר רלוונטי לליבת המחלוקת, ייטה בית המשפט להיעתר לדרישה על אף ההכבדה הכרוכה בה (עניין בן צבי, פסקה 13). יודגש, כי הנטל להוכיח את טענת ההכבדה מוטל על הטוען לה (עניין גרבר, פסקה 8).

In conclusion

הליכי גילוי מסמכים הם הליכים בעלי חשיבות רבה וישנה חובה לקיימם במסגרת מרבית התביעות האזרחיות/כספיות, מכיוון ששיטת המשפט שלנו דוגלת ב"משחק בקלפים פתוחים".

There may be cases where the litigant will also demand the disclosure of documents that are detrimental to his claims. If the litigant refuses to disclose the document, he will not be allowed to use it and at the same time the court will be entitled to order the deletion of the statement of claims on his behalf, and to charge him with legal costs.

Not every document required as part of discovery proceedings is required to be disclosed. There are legal reasons that allow a request to disclose documents to be rejected, such as: confidentiality, invasion of privacy, libel, trade secret, and more.

In many cases, litigants do not pay due attention to the discovery procedures, and this may harm them later in the process. In these cases, it is always advisable to consult with Claims lawyer experienced.

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Document Disclosure Procedures