Replies

I have a question for any lawyers or any students of the law who have real knowledge and experience in these matters.

Everyone keeps saying ACORN will never sue because they would be afraid of what could be exposed during “discovery”.

But if all they are suing for is being “illegally taped” would they have to expose anything that doesn’t pertain to whether they knew they were being taped or not? In other words, if they do not claim they are being falsely acccused of anything, would evidence of their various corrupt activities even be relevant to the lawsuit? Wouldn’t the only thing the defendants have a right to “discover” is whether ACORN was informed that they were being taped?

Again, if ACORN sues for slander or defamation I could see how evidence of their wrongdoings would be relevant. But if they are only suing for being illegally audio recorded without their knowledge, which is against Maryland law, would they have any reason to fear “discovery”?