Which scenario qualifies for obtaining disclosure from a non-party?

Which scenario qualifies for obtaining disclosure from a non-party?

• A. The non-party is unavailable for examination
• B. The non-party has knowledge of privileged information
• C. The non-party resides more than 100 miles from the trial location
• D. The non-party is directly involved in the action

Answer: (C)

Obtaining disclosure from a non-party can be necessary in various circumstances, particularly when that non-party possesses relevant information or evidence. The correct answer highlights the scenario where the non-party resides more than 100 miles from the trial location. In legal proceedings, the location of a potential witness or source of information can significantly influence whether the court will allow for disclosure to be obtained. If a non-party resides outside a certain distance from the court (typically set at 100 miles), this can justify the need to seek disclosure, as it may be impractical for the non-party to attend court in person to provide testimony or documents. This scenario accommodates logistical challenges and reflects a court's willingness to facilitate evidence gathering in a way that acknowledges distance as a valid issue. In contrast, if a non-party is unavailable for examination, has knowledge of privileged information, or is directly involved in the action, these scenarios do not inherently warrant disclosure. The unavailability of a non-party may not facilitate obtaining information if alternative means of obtaining that information are available. Similarly, knowledge of privileged information may restrict what can be disclosed, and a direct involvement in the action typically suggests that the person would be treated as a party rather than a non-party. Therefore, the emphasis on the

Obtaining disclosure from a non-party can be necessary in various circumstances, particularly when that non-party possesses relevant information or evidence. The correct answer highlights the scenario where the non-party resides more than 100 miles from the trial location.

In legal proceedings, the location of a potential witness or source of information can significantly influence whether the court will allow for disclosure to be obtained. If a non-party resides outside a certain distance from the court (typically set at 100 miles), this can justify the need to seek disclosure, as it may be impractical for the non-party to attend court in person to provide testimony or documents. This scenario accommodates logistical challenges and reflects a court's willingness to facilitate evidence gathering in a way that acknowledges distance as a valid issue.

In contrast, if a non-party is unavailable for examination, has knowledge of privileged information, or is directly involved in the action, these scenarios do not inherently warrant disclosure. The unavailability of a non-party may not facilitate obtaining information if alternative means of obtaining that information are available. Similarly, knowledge of privileged information may restrict what can be disclosed, and a direct involvement in the action typically suggests that the person would be treated as a party rather than a non-party. Therefore, the emphasis on the