Whenever an issue is litigated in court, the litigation process must always follows a strict system of rules. These rules help to ensure that each issue is resolved in a fair, consistent, and equitable manner. The “discovery” phase is part of this system, and it is something many laypeople are familiar with. Essentially, the discovery phase is focused on the gathering of information relative to a given issue or set of issues. The discovery process is concerned with ensuring that there is transparency with respect to the issues involved in the case; there aren’t supposed to be any “surprises” or unfair refusals to share relevant information. This process has deadlines and procedural rules, however, and failure to observe these things can produce serious negative consequences.
In the case of Leiweke v. Bernstein (2023), the husband and wife were involved in a prolonged battle with respect to division of assets. A big part of this battle related to the wife’s refusal to turn over evidence pertaining to her earnings and financial condition. Let’s examine this case to get a clearer sense of how the discovery process works.
Case Facts
The husband and wife in this case were both well-educated and high-earning professionals. The wife earned a high salary as her employer’s “Senior Vice President” and “General Counsel.” The couple married in 2011 and then separated in 2023. The couple engaged in a dispute as to a monetary award and the division of retirement accounts; these were the primary issues in the divorce. When the husband attempted to collect information regarding the wife’s current financial situation, he encountered a series of setbacks.
The wife’s counsel refused to comply with the husband’s discovery request for information on the wife’s financial condition. The husband then attempted to collect this information directly from the wife’s employer. More specifically, the husband subpoenaed two of the wife’s colleagues – two executives of her company. Those executives also refused to comply with the husband’s request. The trial court ruled in favor of the husband when these executives refused to comply; this matter was then upheld (in favor of the husband) on appeal.
Outcome / Discussion
The executives failed to succeed when they brought the issue to the appellate division. The executives argued that the husband’s request could be satisfied in a less burdensome manner than the one he insisted on. When a party makes a discovery request, one of the arguments which may overcome a request is that the responding party is being overly burdened; in other words, complying with the request would be too difficult or onerous for the responding party. If the responding party can show that the request could be fulfilled through some other means, then the responding party may prevail. In this situation, the executives never cited any other potential alternative means to acquire the desired information. Since nothing was cited, the court basically had to rule in favor of the husband. Merely stating that the request is burdensome is generally not sufficient to overcome a discovery request such as the one put forth by the husband.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you want to know more about this case, or about pretrial discovery in family law, or another related topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.