Edit - Law Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Thanks! Wikipedia's Adverse inference; United States "This rule applies not only to evidence destroyed but also to evidence existing but not produced by the party as well as to evidence under a party's control but not produced... The adverse inference is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it, if it had been supportive." In my example the party seems powerless to produce it, which seems contrary to this presumption. Of course running out of cash could be intentional
– uhoh
Commented Aug 16, 2023 at 22:28
Can a [plaintiff] in the US be required to produce *paywalled documents?* +1. What's next? Leave the country because you're being sued personally instead of under a company umbrella?
– Mazura
Commented Aug 17, 2023 at 1:01

Add a comment |

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »