The use of 26(c) protective orders: "pleading the Fifth" without suffering "adverse" consequences
Article Abstract:
The Second Circuit's position on protective orders is preferable to that of the Fourth Circuit. Protective orders are issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to encourage witnesses to testify rather than invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which can create an adverse inference against the witness. The Second Circuit has ruled that a protective order is not automatically overridden by a grand jury subpoena, whereas the Fourth Circuit has taken the opposite position. The Second Circuit's rule best protects constitutional rights while promoting the goals of discovery.
Publication Name: Annual Survey of American Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0066-4413
Year: 1994
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Caltex and Abbco Ice Works - the end of the road for corporations?
Article Abstract:
The Australian High Court and Full Federal Court expanded the procedural options of the Trade Practices Commission by ruling in Environmental Protection Authority v. Caltex Refining Co. and TPC v. Abbco Works Pty. that corporations do not possess the privilege against self-incrimination. This ruling helps the Commission because it will no longer have to use Trade Practices Act 1974 section 155 only when proceedings have not yet begun. These rulings will assist the Trade Practices Commission in recovering pecuniary penalties.
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Do you want to know a secret: documentary evidence and the privilege against self-incrimination
Article Abstract:
The Australian High Court, in Environment Protection Authority v. Caltex Refining Co., has ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination is not applicable to corporations. This decision leaves unclear whether business records and other documentary evidence can ever be withheld under the privilege, even for individuals. This case follows US law regarding business records and self-incrimination.
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: The concept of property and the Takings Clause. Taxation and the Constitution
- Abstracts: The benefits of ADR for medical malpractice; adopting contract rather than tort law
- Abstracts: Is the evidence all in? A proposal for revising the federal rules. Employer dilemma: reducing workers' comp costs may be undercut by conflicting federal laws
- Abstracts: Patent protection and technology transfer in the developing world: the Thailand experience. Eighteen months to publication: should the United States join Europe and Japan by promptly publishing patent applications?
- Abstracts: Reverse discrimination employment litigation: defining the limits of preferential promotion. Should men benefit from the same presumption of unlawful sex discrimination that helps women claimants under the Equal Pay Act?