Sanctions against Non-submitted Information or Spoliation in Civil Procedure in the United States-Centering around the Adverse Inference Instruction
| Project/Area Number |
25780007
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Research Field |
Fundamental law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Kyoto Prefectural University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
TAKEBE HARUMI 京都府立大学, 公共政策学部, 准教授 (00610007)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2013-04-01 – 2015-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2014)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,340,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥540,000)
Fiscal Year 2014: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2013: ¥1,430,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥330,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | ディスカバリー / 不利益推定説示 / 制裁 / 民事訴訟手続き / 真実擬制 / 日米比較 / アメリカ / 情報隠匿 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
In this study, I focused on the adverse inference instruction in the civil discovery procedures in the United States. Especially I commented Brookshire case in which Texas Supreme Court pointed that when the party had destroyed the evidence negligently, as far as the alleged evidence was not the “merit of the case,” it had not been necessary for the district court to make an adverse inference instruction. The case had a dissenting opinion against the court opinion to raise questionable points. For the comparative purpose, I reviewed the preceding studies on this issue in Japan, especially upon the “Truth Fiction” in the Japanese Civil Procedure Code Article 224 and analyzed the Nichias Asbestos case. On the ground of the above analysis, I clarified a sharp difference between Japanese Civil Procedure Code Article 224 and the Adverse Inference Instruction in United States. According to the difference I found, the weakness of the Japanese sanction is indicated.
|
Report
(3 results)
Research Products
(3 results)
