The Complaint for a Pure Bill of Discovery: A Living, Breathing, Modern Day Dinosaur?

A pure bill of discovery is an old legal remedy that asks the court to make the other party share information or documents. It’s not used much anymore because modern rules of procedure cover most types of discovery. But sometimes it’s still necessary to use a pure bill of discovery to get the information needed for a case. This article explains how the pure bill of discovery has developed over time and how it works in Florida law. It also discusses what needs to be included in a complaint for a pure bill of discovery and what mistakes to avoid. Before the concept of discovery, if someone in a legal case needed more information, they had to ask a different court for help. The court would then allow written responses to the request for more information, which could be used in the original case. The court usually granted this request as long as it would make the case harder without the extra information. However, this process only allowed information that helped the party asking for it, not the other party. In 1927, new laws allowed for written questions and testimony in legal cases, but only for important facts, not the entire case. In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expanded the use of discovery procedures in court cases. The rules were broadly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1947, and Florida adopted similar rules that same year. In 1954, Florida adopted its own rules of civil procedure, making discovery applicable to both law and chancery actions. This means that in Florida, you no longer need to start a separate case just to get information from the other side. However, Florida still allows for a special procedure called a pure bill of discovery, which has its own unique place in the legal process. To file a complaint for a pure bill of discovery, you need to show: 1) what information you’re looking for, 2) how it relates to the parties involved, 3) why you need the information, 4) your rights and interests in the matter, and 5) how the information is necessary for a lawsuit. You can’t use a pure bill of discovery just to see if you have a case – you need to have a valid reason for requesting the information. In the case of Adventist Health System v. Hegwood, the court ruled that a person could use a pure bill of discovery to get information from medical witnesses for a malpractice lawsuit. This is because the information was needed to figure out who to sue and under what legal theory. Another case, Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., said that the request for information must be necessary to support a cause of action and both the plaintiff and defendant must have a present interest in the subject matter. To file a complaint for a pure bill of discovery, the plaintiff must have a real reason to do so, not just a possible reason. They must also be involved in the case and have a valid purpose for filing the complaint, like finding potential defendants or reasons for a lawsuit. These are extra requirements on top of the main ones already established. A complaint for a pure bill of discovery should follow specific rules and include important information such as the reason for seeking discovery, the specific items being sought, and the plaintiff’s right to the relief. It should avoid being speculative and should have circumstantial evidence to support the claims. An example of an improper complaint is a case where the personal representative of a deceased person’s estate filed a complaint for discovery against the deceased person’s former psychiatrist, but the claims were deemed speculative and not supported by evidence. In these court cases, employees and law enforcement agencies tried to use a pure bill of discovery to get information before filing a lawsuit. In some cases, the courts said they could have gotten the information another way or that they were just trying to see what evidence they could find before deciding whether to sue. In another case, the court said the person asking for discovery had to first show they had a right to the information they were asking for. In some cases, a complaint for a pure bill of discovery may be dismissed if certain defects are present, such as the cause of action being speculative, a similar case already being pending, or the statute of limitations expiring. However, there is a statute (F.S. §627.736(6)) that allows for a complaint for a pure bill of discovery in certain situations, such as in disputes between motor vehicle and casualty insurers and employers, physicians, hospitals, clinics, and medical institutions. This statute allows for court-ordered discovery in these situations, as long as good cause is shown and all interested parties are notified. An insurance company paid a claim for medical equipment, but then found out the equipment lease was suspicious. They asked for more information, and when the company wouldn’t provide it, the insurer asked the court to force them to give the information. The court agreed, even though the insurer didn’t have solid evidence. In another case, the insurer asked for more info in a similar situation, but the court initially said no. Later, they told the court to think about it again. In both Kaminsester and Goldstein, the pleadings were filed as requests for information, but they may not have technically needed to be since the information they were asking for was allowed by law. This would also apply to any other law that lets parties ask for information.

If someone has a valid reason to sue but the time limit for suing is coming up, they might need to file a request for information. In that case, they can change their request into a lawsuit once they get the information they need. And the time limit for suing would start from when they first filed the request. In the first case, a police lieutenant wanted to know why he got demoted, so he sued his employer for information. Later, he wanted to also sue for a violation of his civil rights. The trial court said no, but the appeals court said it was okay to add the civil rights claim.

In the second case, a company sued someone for information and money. Later, they also wanted to sue for legal mistakes and other things. The trial court said no, but the appeals court said it was okay because the new claims were related to the original lawsuit. In the Fleming v. Travelers Ins. Co. case, a person sued their insurance company for information about their car insurance policy. Later, they found out that the policy was actually issued by two other companies, so they added those companies as defendants in the lawsuit. The court said that even though the time limit for filing a lawsuit had passed, the person could still sue the other companies because their original lawsuit had the same essential facts. This means that if a lawsuit is amended to add new claims that are related to the original claims, it should be allowed. This can save time and money by not having to file a new lawsuit. And if the same parties and claims are in both the original and amended lawsuits, the amended lawsuit can still be considered filed on the same date as the original lawsuit, for the purpose of the time limit for filing a lawsuit. A complaint for a pure bill of discovery is not often used in today’s legal system, as most discovery needs can be met through standard rules of procedure. However, it can still be helpful for expanding and refining legal pleadings and identifying proper parties to a case. It’s important for lawyers to make sure the allegations in the complaint meet the requirements for relief, and to use the complaint for its intended purpose. Overall, while this legal tool is old, it still has a place in modern law practice.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-complaint-for-a-pure-bill-of-discovery-a-living-breathing-modern-day-dinosaur/