Using Discovery in Small Claims

[drkilra]

"Leave of court" to do what?

You are not making sense.

Check out the information in these posts and the rules in the below link to see the "leave" that I was talking about.

dcats, thanks for your response. I like your reason and explaination. I'm thinking I may have more a chance if I file a standard civil action instead of small claims that way I can open those discovery 'doors'. I would still have to get a "leave of court" and I'm wondering how hard that would be considering I'm a Pro Se litigant and Rule 25A (a) et seq.
What do you think about this?

Is discovery such as this permissible in small claims and would anyone recommend it as a substitute for proof?

The purpose of discovery is to develop evidence. The by-product may have more or less probative value than some other evidence, but it is “proof”. It’s a good thing and a good idea. Whether it’s available to you is the issue. It’s not.

Your Small Claims actions are governed by your Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure. You can read them here:
Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure

Note that Rule 2 distinguishes between civil actions and small claims actions. Rules 3 through 87 pertain to civil actions and include the discovery rules. Rules 88 through 100 pertain to small claims and don’t provide for discovery. Precluding discovery in Small Claims is the majority position. It would be likely to make an informal, expedited proceeding protracted and cumbersome.

Rule 1 allows the court to make special orders in the interest of justice, but you’re swimming against the current to try to get the court to incorporate formal discovery for the reason given.

 

[tranquility]

It’s only evidence that she is non responsive and of bad character in which I hope would help the judge make an informed decision.

The only thing which it is "evidence" of is that..well, I suppose if you could prove you mailed it would be evidence you did.

In small claims you might get it in, but it shouldn't have any probative value. In real court, not a chance it would even get in.

 

[dcatz]

OP – It’s good that you found the Rules instructive. Understand that they were only provided to address the question of whether discovery was available to you in small claims actions in Nevada. Don’t infer that, because discovery is useful per se, that it would necessarily make your case in this instance.

First, all of this assumes that she responds, whether you sue in a small claims action or a general civil action. The case could go by default.

If you filed a general civil action and got the right to do discovery, it doesn’t guarantee the result that you desire. You could establish a withdrawal from your bank, a deposit in her account and a car payment made the day that you allege that you made the loan. That has some probative value but SJ, speaking for himself and others, nailed it. Does your evidence overcome a contention that you gave her a gift? Does she owe you money?

Was the amount enough that you’d pay to depose her in the hope that she’d admit to a loan? Would the Court grant leave to go that far?

You potentially have a default or a “he said-she said” case. Tranq is right about estoppel, and the rest of this seems largely academic.