Case Name: IN RE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1898-04-18
Citations: 33 Ct. Cl. 354
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN RE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
IN RE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE.
[Announced April 18, 1898.]
On claimants’ Applications.
A number of calls on Executive Departments for evidence are presented to the court. Some are mere hills of discovory, the claimants not specifying or knowing what they want. Some are general in their requests, throwing the responsibility of selecting documentary evidence upon the clerks of the departments. Some are for copies of papers, presumably in the claimants’ possession.
I.A call by the court upon an Executive Department, under Revised Statutes, § 1076, is in the- nature of a siibpmna, duces tecwm, and can not be turned into a bill of discovery.
II.The requisites of a call upon the Executive Departments stated.
III.The court will not call upon the departments for evidence, presumptively in the hands of the claimant.
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:
Tbe foliowiug rules announced per curiam will inform tbe bar with regard to calls on tbe Executive Departments for evidence:

Opinion:
Pee GueiaM:
A call upon an Executive Department under Eevised Statutes, section 1076, is of tbe nature of a writ of subpoena duces tecum, and can not be turned into a bill of discovery. (Elting's Case, 27 C. Cls. E., 158.) Generally, everything that can be procured as evidence from an Executive Department is a matter of record, and tbe call must seek copies of tbe record, and with sufficient particularity to enable an intelligent clerk in .the ordinary discharge of bis duty to find tbe record and copy it. Tbe responsibility of determining what is relevant, or of finding documentary matter not-specifically called for, can not be thrown on tbe officers of a department. Tbe evidence called for must also appear on tbe face of tbe call to be relevant, material, and competent. (Woolverton's Case, 26 C. Cls. R., 215.)
Neither will tbe court issue a call on an Executive Department for evidence wbicb presumptively is in tbe possession of tbe claimant; ex.gr., for copies of letters sent by tbe defendants' officers to tbe claimant; for contracts in duplicate, one of wbicb was retained by tbe claimant. Sucb documentary evidence as a plaintiff can bimself produce, and wbicb in an ordinary action at law or a suit in equity be would 'produce on bis own bebalf as a matter of course, tbe claimant bere can not compel tbe defendants to produce through calls upon tbe departments.