This won't apply to most of you out there. This is a post about a narrow set of circumstances in court. Bear with me if you're interested.

TL;DR: A Discovery demand from the opposing lawyer will typically ask for more than they're entitled. They will trick or convince you to answer. Don't expect them to reciprocate. They will absolutely keep you in the dark as much as they can.

Some context: I started my divorce with a lawyer, but ultimately finished Pro Se because I ran out of money. I learned what I could before our trial, but truth be told, looking back, I didn't do a very good job. Since then, I have learned considerably more. Maybe I'm not as smart as a lawyer, but one thing I've learned is Dirty Lawyer Tricks and how to recognize them.

The summary of this post could be: "The opposing lawyer will ask for anything and everything, even if there is no provision in the law." They ask for more than they're entitled to, just to see if you'll catch it. It's not the judge's job to keep things fair. If the opposing lawyer tricks you into giving up too much, that's on you.

Anyway, I've responded to a lot of Discovery demands. One typical demand is for a list of witnesses I will bring, and a summary of what exactly they will be testifying about. This seems fair. After all, we're often told that court is not like how it's portrayed in the movies with a "surprise witness" who upsets everything. Instead, court is meant to be predictable and everyone has a chance to present a fair defense. That is, if you claim X (whatever) about me, I can try to impeach your claim with a witness or evidence, but I have to give you fair warning in advance.

ANYWAY... where I'm going with this... I was watching a Family Court hearing on YouTube. At about 9:22, the woman complains that she could not prepare a defense for an upcoming hearing because the opposition refused to disclose what their witness would testify to. HERE is a link to the conversation.

Up until now, I would have guessed that she had a valid claim; that the opposition had a duty to reveal the nature of any testimony and evidence that will be used. But the judge explains this is WRONG -- the opposition has no such duty. I'm surprised.

The summary of this post: If you're Pro Se, the opposing attorney can make it seem AS IF you're required to provide some details in Discovery that they themselves will not reveal. If you're answering a Discovery demand, be sure you only provide what's prescribed by law.