Replies

You can't grant one side "discovery" to go on a fishing expedition to support their ever expanding claims against their enemy and pretend that you have a system of justice.

So "discovery" once granted, can't at the same time be limited to "relevant" documents? I think I saw in one of the rules that it can be. Does not the court have to approve every supoena?

So "discovery" once granted, can't at the same time be limited to "relevant" documents? I think I saw in one of the rules that it can be. Does not the court have to approve every subpoena?

Discovery can be limited to that which is relevant or likely to lead to relevant evidence.

However - before discovery of any sort is granted, you must "allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is 'plausible on its face.'" Read pp 7-9 of the opinion.

Citing to a list of SS# for people whose name sounds like Obama's to allege fraud is not "plausible" evidence. (You'd need SOME indication that THIS Obama actually used THOSE SS#.)
Citing to an AOL survey of what people believe is not "plausible evidence."
Citing to an alleged US ban on travel to Pakistan is not "plausible evidence" (especially when evidence proves that claim to be false).
If you go through her Rhodes complaint, she really cites no "plausible" evidence to support her claims.

You have to be able to cite to SOME plausible evidence to support your claims other than "I don't like him; I don't trust him, so he must be lying."