Commercial Vs Noncommercial Speech

Consequences of Discovery Interference

Interfering with legitimate discovery requests such as document alteration or destruction can severely damage the case of the interfering party. In working with the courts to supply documentation which has been requested, a party that feels the need to destroy or alter any documentation that interferes with legitimate discovery requests cultivates danger of damaging both the case and credibility going forward in the suit.

In the 1 Enron Corporation case (2001), the finances were controlled by a company called Arthur Anderson. The Arthur Anderson Company was accused and found guilty of destroying documents that would be later requested in the court discovery process. The firm was found guilty of obstruction of justice which led to criminal prosecution of the accused. 2 The United States Supreme Court later overturned the verdict; however Anderson has not been seen in the business world since the case.

3 Since the state of the law regarding spoliation; Spoliation: The destruction or alteration of evidence, Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (1957) is unclear, there is nothing preventing parties from destroying potential future legitimate discovery. The consequences of spoliation could not only confuse the case because if the courts do not know about the spoliation, cases go unheard and tried fairly. 1 The courts have the authority to give such punishment as the court would see fit to each case. A court could enforce an order prohibiting the document destroyer from raising some claims against the opposing party in a lawsuit as well as disclose to the jury that the documents were destroyed. The courts may also order the interferer to pay attorney and court costs of the opposing party as punishment for interfering with legitimate discovery requests.

The courts have the authority to hand down adverse consequences as the court would see fit