Irish Water etc ...

gozunda

Regarding the recent decision by the government to bring the state sponsored body - Irish water under the relevant FOI acts to access relevant information but information not put forward as far as I can see.

Hypothetically would court discovery be applicable to the disclosure of such information or would / does discovery exclude Information normally available under FOI?

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Regarding the recent decision by the government to bring the state sponsored body - Irish water under the relevant FOI acts to access relevant information but information not put forward as far as I can see.

Hypothetically would court discovery be applicable to the disclosure of such information or would / does discovery exclude Information normally available under FOI?

Bump...

Five Lamps

What is your question? What information in theory would you be seeking to obtain??

gozunda

Five Lamps wrote: »

What is your question? What information in theory would you be seeking to obtain??

? As above. Question concerns gaining access to relevant information on IW using discovery in the short term

A hypothetical situation but relevant information (non personal) about IWs operations and expenses relating to water charges, set up and expenditure to date (similar to information required by the inquiry into same)

Five Lamps

Not sure why you would need that info.

Surely, all of it would be in their annual report at year end?

FreudianSlippers

The question doesn't really make sense tbh. Surely saying that the info is available from a FOI request is no defence against a request for discovery, and arguing that in front is a judge would be like neither consenting nor objecting to a discovery request and letting the judge decide on the usual grounds. Is the information necessary and relevant to your case against Irish Water?

I'm not sure whether I'd be of the same opinion if it was non-party discovery though.

FreudianSlippers

gozunda wrote: »

Bump...

Dont do that.

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Dont do that.

Thanks . I won't do that.

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The question doesn't really make sense tbh. Surely saying that the info is available from a FOI request is no defence against a request for discovery, and arguing that in front is a judge would be like neither consenting nor objecting to a discovery request and letting the judge decide on the usual grounds. Is the information necessary and relevant to your case against Irish Water?

I'm not sure whether I'd be of the same opinion if it was non-party discovery though.

Ok not too sure I fully understand your reply to be honest. In this example IW were not subject to FOI as a state sponsored body. As far as I am aware the body were not making this information available either directly or indirectly.

The relevant minister introduced a specific bill to enable FOI for the review of the setup of said body.

Other similar bodies remain exempt and do not have to publish or make available the types of information described.

The scenario then moved to whether such information would have been available through the process of discovery.

From what you said I take it that judges would not consider whether something is or is not part of FOI in their deliberations?

The relevant FOI acts refer to personal or non personal information. By non-party I am presuming you mean the latter?

gozunda

Five Lamps wrote: »

Not sure why you would need that info.

Surely, all of it would be in their annual report at year end?

I don't need it. But why would anyone 'need' any information?

FreudianSlippers

gozunda wrote: »

Ok not too sure I fully understand your reply to be honest. In this example IW were not subject to FOI as a state sponsored body. As far as I am aware the body were not making this information available either directly or indirectly.

The relevant minister introduced a specific bill to enable FOI for the review of the setup of said body.

Other similar bodies remain exempt and do not have to publish or make available the types of information described.

The scenario then moved to whether such information would have been available through the process of discovery.

From what you said I take it that judges would not consider whether something is or is not part of FOI in their deliberations?

The relevant FOI acts refer to personal or non personal information. By non-party I am presuming you mean the latter?

I don't think you are understanding discovery entirely. You have, effectively, 2 types of discovery: normal discovery and non-party discovery.

The normal kind is seeking documentation from a party to the proceedings - in this case it would be FreudianSlippers v Irish Water - and I'm seeking the documents in question to further my case. I go to court and tell the judge why these documents are relevant and necessary to either further my case or damage their case. IW gets an opportunity to argue why they are not relevant and necessary (and for the sake of argument anything that is relevant is automatically necessary).

In your scenario (or what I think you're getting at) IW are arguing that the info in question is available via FOI and the proper way to get that info is via the FOI, an argument IMHO, that doesn't hold up as a grounds for not giving the documents. Alternatively, if you're saying that IW might argue they shouldn't have to discover the info as it is not info they would have to give under an FOI request - that is also IMHO not a valid argument against discovery.

Now, that brings up the second type, non-party discovery, i.e. where IW is not a party to the proceedings (FreudianSlippers v Gozunda). I'm saying I need this info from IW to advance my case against you and you don't have the info either. It is open to IW to come to court and say that they would give it our under an FOI... In that case I think it is potentially an argument against granting discovery there; I should have exhausted the other means of obtaining the info. If it was not info available under an FOI then I think the court would grant it (obviously fulfilling the other factors).

FreudianSlippers

gozunda wrote: »

I don't need it. But why would anyone 'need' any information?

Needing the info is a fairly key requirement in discovery applications.

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Needing the info is a fairly key requirement in discovery applications.

I meant that "I" personally don't need it - this is a hypothetical situation. Five Lamps seemed to think I have a current case. The second line referred to - as to why anybody might need information - because they do. So yes I am in agreement that in such as scenario it would be a key requirement.

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think you are understanding discovery entirely. You have, effectively, 2 types of discovery: normal discovery and non-party discovery.

The normal kind is seeking documentation from a party to the proceedings - in this case it would be FreudianSlippers v Irish Water - and I'm seeking the documents in question to further my case. I go to court and tell the judge why these documents are relevant and necessary to either further my case or damage their case. IW gets an opportunity to argue why they are not relevant and necessary (and for the sake of argument anything that is relevant is automatically necessary).

In your scenario (or what I think you're getting at) IW are arguing that the info in question is available via FOI and the proper way to get that info is via the FOI, an argument IMHO, that doesn't hold up as a grounds for not giving the documents. Alternatively, if you're saying that IW might argue they shouldn't have to discover the info as it is not info they would have to give under an FOI request - that is also IMHO not a valid argument against discovery.

Now, that brings up the second type, non-party discovery, i.e. where IW is not a party to the proceedings (FreudianSlippers v Gozunda). I'm saying I need this info from IW to advance my case against you and you don't have the info either. It is open to IW to come to court and say that they would give it our under an FOI... In that case I think it is potentially an argument against granting discovery there; I should have exhausted the other means of obtaining the info. If it was not info available under an FOI then I think the court would grant it (obviously fulfilling the other factors).

Interesting points and I think closer to the issue. I get the party and non-party differences.

Ok somewhat different scenario of FS v IW.
FS seeks discovery of certain information from IW.
IW argues against full discovery
The court directs that only certain information is discoverable (which just happens to be already available under FOI)

On this instance what if any would the point of the limiting discovery where the information is already available under FOI?

...

FreudianSlippers

gozunda wrote: »

Interesting points and I think closer to the issue. I get the party and non-party differences.

Ok somewhat different scenario of FS v IW.
FS seeks discovery of certain information from IW.
IW argues against full discovery
The court directs that only certain information is discoverable (which just happens to be already available under FOI)

On this instance what if any would the point of the limiting discovery where the information is already available under FOI?

...

I can't think of a good reason why they wouldn't direct discovery of anything that is freely available to the world at large. I'd imagine there'd be costs implications against the party that didn't try to get the info via FOI.

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't think of a good reason why they wouldn't direct discovery of anything that is freely available to the world at large. I'd imagine there'd be costs implications against the party that didn't try to get the info via FOI.

Therein lies the detail. In the scenario detailed above - FS's discovery is looking for a range of information some of which is inclusive of, but also over and above than that which is avalailable under FOI. However following discovery, FS gets full disclosure in some categories but in other is limited by the ruling to information that is already available under FOI.

This is the conundrum. Where full disclosure is not given to certain information, what would the point of a ruling, limiting discovery to Information already available in the public domain?

FreudianSlippers

gozunda wrote: »

Therein lies the detail. In the scenario detailed above - FS's discovery is looking for a range of information some of which is inclusive of, but also over and above than that which is avalailable under FOI. However following discovery, FS gets full disclosure in some categories but in other is limited by the ruling to information that is already available under FOI.

This is the conundrum. Where full disclosure is not given to certain information, what would the point of a ruling, limiting discovery to Information already available in the public domain?

If the court limited the discovery to info available under the FOI then that's the court's decision on the facts. If the court ordered discovery and the respondent didn't give full discovery, then they are in breach of the order.

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If the court limited the discovery to info available under the FOI then that's the court's decision on the facts.

Would this not be a duplication of Information available to the requesting party through other sources / means that you previously mentioned?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If the court ordered discovery and the respondent didn't give full discovery, then they are in breach of the order.

In this instance how long would the courts generally permit prevarication by the respondent? They might be in breach but would following this be difficult and possibly lead to an escalation of costs for the other party.