DR 02 G Hogg dated 15 November 2010

From: Geoff Hogg 
Sent: Monday, 15 November 2010 3:04 PM
To: ALRC
Subject: ALRC releases Consultation Paper on Discovery [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I received the invitation for comment.
The link failed
I could not find the form online, thus this note.

My comment is as follows and is a general one applying across the Courts.

My involvement in discovery has been in the role of responsibility for an organisation, not party to the proceedings, but who has received a subpoena for documents. These subpoenas are often poorly drawn, broad, and have the look of fishing expeditions. I am aware the court does not review the content of the request pre-send and if I wish to object I believe I need to become party to an action to that effect. As the requests are frequently onerous, tying up otherwise needed specialist staff, it would be far preferable if the requests were targetted, vetted or if at least there was an easier way of the person receiving the request to feed back that discussion/clarification/truncation of scope required.

Furthermore, requests for discovery often are presented as urgent, often years after the event and clearly with little forward planning or consideration of recipient’s needs.

Thanks for asking
Regards,
Geoff

Geoff Hogg FRCPA FRACP BMBS BVSc BMedSci MVS JD GDLP
Director
Microbiological Diagnostic Unit - Public Health Laboratory
Department of Microbiology & Immunology
The University Of Melbourne