{"id":37281,"date":"2025-06-12T08:59:26","date_gmt":"2025-06-12T08:59:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/?p=37281"},"modified":"2025-06-17T16:20:16","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T16:20:16","slug":"procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/","title":{"rendered":"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether you are preparing to litigate or facing a lawsuit before French courts, effective evidence management is the cornerstone of a successful outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In French civil and commercial proceedings, the evidentiary rules differ starkly from those in common law jurisdictions. The French civil law system rests exclusively on written evidence and there is no live witness testimony, no general discovery and no \u2018fishing expeditions\u2019. These features mean that the battle must be fought before the trial on the merits even begins. Against this background, the claimant\u2019s evidence-gathering strategy must be carefully crafted with seasoned litigators either prior to initiating any proceedings, as their success hinges on this pre-trial gambit, or within the course of the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same level of strategic foresight must also prevail if you sit on the defence side of the courtroom. In the absence of both disclosure obligations and a duty of good faith in the production of evidence, parties may withhold documents that could undermine their case, unless such withholding is effectively challenged by the opposing party through targeted disclosure requests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE CLAIMANT’S BATTLE PLAN FOR GATHERING EVIDENCE<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Under the rules of the French Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Therefore, collecting evidence ahead of trial is pivotal to building a winning case, especially as there is no broad discovery stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nonetheless, French law affords several effective procedural tools to collect evidence. Given the strict requirements, these measures must be implemented with legal counsel to withstand judicial scrutiny and potential challenges from the defendant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PRE-TRIAL DISCLOSURE APPLICATION (CCP ARTICLE 145)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A party anticipating litigation may request an ex parte <\/em>order authorising the seizure of specific documents or data without prior notice, to prevent the destruction of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal criteria for securing such an order are stringent, and the application must be filed prior to the proceedings on the merits. Moreover, the applicant must demonstrate that the requested evidence could potentially pave the way for a future claim, which is neither clearly inadmissible, nor manifestly doomed to fail. The applicant is thus required to establish legitimate reasons to suspect potential wrongdoing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike US-style discovery, this pre-trial mechanism is narrow in scope. Indeed, French courts will not authorise broad fishing expeditions. Most of these pre-trial orders are enforced by a judicial officer (commissaire de justice<\/em>) authorised to search, sometimes with police assistance, the opposing party\u2019s premises or personal residence to gather evidence, akin to a dawn raid, though more limited in reach. The judicial officer can copy files, emails and other relevant data which may be found on hard drives, servers and other storage devices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, applicants must precisely identify the documents they seek, either individually or by category. In practice, this entails using targeted keywords directly related to the dispute’s subject matter and specifying a relevant time frame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because this pre-trial measure is initially non-adversarial, it is particularly suited to situations where there exists a risk of evidence destruction or tampering, typically in unfair competition cases or suspected anti-competitive practices. However, courts now require applicants to provide compelling justifications for bypassing the adversarial principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, since the procedure ultimately becomes adversarial \u2013 once the order is executed and challenged \u2013 it is essential to seek legal advice to avoid procedural pitfalls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INJUNCTION TO DISCLOSE SPECIFIED EVIDENCE<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Once proceedings are underway, claimants may still petition the court to compel the defendant or a third party to disclose specific evidence. While French law does not recognise \u2018contempt of court\u2019 in the common law sense, non-compliance with a court injunction may result in a financial penalty (CCP, Art. 11, 138 and 142 et seq.<\/em>) and may also adversely affect the court\u2019s assessment of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This tool rests on strict admissibility conditions: the document must exist and be essential to establishing the truth; the request cannot compensate for the claimant\u2019s evidentiary shortcomings; and the disclosure must not infringe overriding rights (as discussed below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While this mechanism lacks the element of surprise inherent in pre-trial tools, it remains a valuable fallback for claimants who missed their shot with the pre-trial disclosure application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EXPERT EVIDENCE<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Experts play a pivotal role in post-acquisition or economic disputes, where quantifying losses may be a daunting enterprise. Indeed, under French law, claimants must substantiate and quantify their losses, as punitive damages are not available. Expert input is equally central in highly technical cases to unravel the root causes of alleged deficiencies, thereby laying the groundwork for the court\u2019s determination of liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In that endeavour, parties may engage a private expert or request the appointment of a judicial expert, including through the pre-trial procedure discussed above. The court may also appoint an expert on its own initiative (CCP, art. 144<\/em>), particularly when the claimant has not properly assessed their loss or the issue at stake is highly technical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While private experts offer litigants greater control, court-appointed expertise helps avoid the \u2018battle of experts\u2019 often witnessed in US litigation, particularly when significant discrepancies arise between opposing experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a procedural standpoint, both court-appointed and party-appointed experts submit written reports, which are debated in writing; contrary to common law systems, experts are not subject to oral examination or cross-examination during the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judicial expertise is entirely adversarial, allowing each party to submit written observations. While judges are not bound by the expert\u2019s findings, they frequently rely on their reports in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, to be admissible evidence, private expert reports must be openly debated by all parties and corroborated with other evidence, as judges may not ground their decision solely on these reports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When retaining a private expert, it is advisable to select one accredited by the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation<\/em>) or a Court of Appeal, as such status lends greater credibility to their report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WITNESS STATEMENTS<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In French civil and commercial proceedings, there are neither witness depositions during the pre-trial stage, nor is there any live examination or cross-examination of witnesses at trial. Instead, written witness statements can be submitted, provided they cover facts personally observed by the witness (CCP, art. 199<\/em>). While these statements are not given \u2018under oath\u2019, false or inaccurate statements may lead to criminal sanctions (Criminal Code, Art. 441-7<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, the claimant\u2019s ability to shape the evidentiary landscape hinges on early-stage planning, aimed at tackling the constraints of the French evidentiary framework and forestalling procedural challenges from the defendant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE: THWARTING THE CLAIMANT\u2019S EVIDENTIARY OFFENSIVE<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Defendants may deploy a host of procedural defences designed to counter or undermine the evidence presented or requested by the opposing party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHALLENGING THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Defendants may raise two main objections to discard or undermine the claimant\u2019s evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, defendants may seek to exclude evidence obtained unlawfully or unfairly. Evidence is deemed unlawful when its disclosure infringes upon fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy or the protection of trade secrets. In contrast, unfairevidence refers to materials gathered secretly, or through deceptive or fraudulent means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since a landmark decision by the French Supreme Court (Plenary Assembly, 22 December 2023, No. 20-20.648<\/em>), the exclusion of unfair or unlawful evidence is no longer automatic. If the other party invokes their right to evidence, courts must conduct a proportionality assessment, balancing the right to evidence (ECHR, Article 6(1)) against the fundamental rights allegedly infringed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disclosure may be denied when the evidence is not decisive to substantiating the claim \u2013 particularly where alternative evidence is already available on record \u2013 and the resulting interference on the defendant\u2019s right would be disproportionate to the objective pursued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This proportionality test also applies to evidence involving trade secrets. In a recent decision (Commercial Chamber, 5 February 2025, No.23-10.953<\/em>), the French Supreme Court admitted a document that contained trade secrets, deeming it indispensable to establishing unfair competition. In addition, the risk of violation to trade secrets may be mitigated through protective measures provided under the French Commercial Code \u2013 including confidentiality rings, redacted exhibits, summaries or closed-door hearings \u2013 thereby preventing any disproportionate interference with the right to trade-secret protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, defendants may invoke legal privilege (secret professionnel<\/em>) to exclude privileged materials from the proceedings. In France, all lawyer-client communications are strictly confidential (Law no. 71-1130 of 31 Dec. 1971, art. 66-5; French Lawyers National Regulation, Article 2<\/em>). Accordingly, such correspondence or documents are inadmissible in court and excluded from the record. This protection does not extend to in-house counsel, whose communications may be subject to disclosure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, communications between French lawyers are confidential, unless expressly marked as \u2018official\u2019 insofar as it does not reference confidential content (French Lawyers National Regulations, Article 3(2)<\/em>). This confidential framework fosters candid dialogue to facilitate amicable resolution of disputes. Should settlement discussions fail, neither party may later introduce into evidence the content of those confidential exchanges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, defendants may also challenge the evidentiary weight of the evidence submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This challenge is relevant when criticising private experts\u2019 reports. Pursuant to the methodological guidelines of the Paris Court of Appeals on economic loss compensation, experts are expected to disclose all the underlying data used in their calculations, clearly articulate their methodology and justify their assumptions. Failure to do so may prompt the defendant to request disclosure of the missing data through a court-ordered injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In such cases, the defendant may argue that the private experts\u2019 report lacks transparency and reliability, thereby weakening its evidentiary weight and potentially leading the court to disregard it altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DEFEATING THE CLAIMANT\u2019S ATTEMPT TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Due to the absence of a general disclosure obligation, defendants can defeat the claimant\u2019s requests for forced disclosure, whether initiated at the pre-trial stage or during the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to objections concerning admissibility and evidentiary weight outlined above, defendants may also show that the claimant failed to meet the legal requirements governing the procedural tools used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, challenges essentially boil down to arguing that the disclosure request seeks to remedy the claimant\u2019s evidentiary shortcomings, particularly where the claimant is reasonably expected to possess the requested evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, with regard to a pre-trial disclosure order (CCP, Art. 145<\/em>), the defendant may argue that the anticipated claim on the merits lacks legitimate grounds, or that the scope of the seizure was excessively broad or insufficiently tailored to the subject matter of the dispute. The debate will thus often focus on the relevance and precision of the keywords used by the claimant to identify the documents to be seized. Courts are indeed increasingly cautious in ensuring that such requests are not disguised fishing expeditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, in response to a document production request during ongoing proceedings, the defendant may argue that the claimant has neither proven the document\u2019s existence nor its necessity for establishing its claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REQUESTING EVIDENCE FROM THE CLAIMANT<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Similar to the claimant, the defendant may compel the disclosure of specific evidence, especially where the claimant is deliberately withholding decisive evidence. Such a request may also be addressed to a third party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, defendants must play a proactive role in evidence management. By contesting admissibility, undermining evidentiary weight and resisting overreaching disclosure requests, defendants can not only thwart the claimant\u2019s offensive, but also seize the strategic upper hand in the litigation on the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SUMMING UP<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In the battle for evidence, success belongs to the party that plans early, strikes precisely, and manoeuvres procedural rules with strategic acumen. Whether acting as claimant or defendant, mastering the French evidence playbook is decisive in securing a legal victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lucile Meriguet is a partner in the restructuring and commercial litigation practice and Claire Havet is a dispute resolution associate, at Fieldfisher Paris.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":16345,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[5396,964,1260,1602,347,1671,208,213,4025,1658,2936,5830,1662,1874,2420],"class_list":["post-37281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-expert-views","tag-admissibility","tag-burden-of-proof","tag-civil-law","tag-civil-procedure-rules","tag-commercial-litigation","tag-criminal-law","tag-disclosure","tag-discovery","tag-evidence","tag-ex-parte-applications","tag-expert-evidence","tag-expert-views","tag-fieldfisher","tag-france","tag-injunctions"],"yoast_head":"\nProcedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield - CDR News<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield - CDR News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"CDR News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-12T08:59:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-17T16:20:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"945\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"361\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Robert Li\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@CDR_Magazine\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@CDR_Magazine\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Robert Li\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Robert Li\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e1a2ddd8246854ce9618e6f10c2fca4d\"},\"headline\":\"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-12T08:59:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-17T16:20:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/\"},\"wordCount\":1941,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Admissibility\",\"Burden of proof\",\"Civil law\",\"civil procedure rules\",\"Commercial litigation\",\"criminal law\",\"Disclosure\",\"Discovery\",\"Evidence\",\"Ex parte applications\",\"expert evidence\",\"Expert Views\",\"Fieldfisher\",\"France\",\"Injunctions\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Expert Views\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/\",\"name\":\"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield - CDR News\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-12T08:59:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-17T16:20:16+00:00\",\"description\":\"Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg\",\"width\":945,\"height\":361,\"caption\":\"France\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/\",\"name\":\"CDR News\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CDR News\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg\",\"caption\":\"CDR News\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/CDR_Magazine\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e1a2ddd8246854ce9618e6f10c2fca4d\",\"name\":\"Robert Li\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/91269b7d659ba8d632d19e8e8e1b05c1598406ffe4f3deacddeed7de6c4ff899?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/91269b7d659ba8d632d19e8e8e1b05c1598406ffe4f3deacddeed7de6c4ff899?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Robert Li\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield - CDR News","description":"Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield - CDR News","og_description":"Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/","og_site_name":"CDR News","article_published_time":"2025-06-12T08:59:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-17T16:20:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":945,"height":361,"url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Robert Li","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@CDR_Magazine","twitter_site":"@CDR_Magazine","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Robert Li","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/"},"author":{"name":"Robert Li","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e1a2ddd8246854ce9618e6f10c2fca4d"},"headline":"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield","datePublished":"2025-06-12T08:59:26+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-17T16:20:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/"},"wordCount":1941,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg","keywords":["Admissibility","Burden of proof","Civil law","civil procedure rules","Commercial litigation","criminal law","Disclosure","Discovery","Evidence","Ex parte applications","expert evidence","Expert Views","Fieldfisher","France","Injunctions"],"articleSection":["Expert Views"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/","name":"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield - CDR News","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg","datePublished":"2025-06-12T08:59:26+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-17T16:20:16+00:00","description":"Lucile Meriguet and Claire Havet of Fieldfisher highlight the quirks and strategies when adducing evidence under the French civil procedure rules.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/France_wall_resized2_2.jpg","width":945,"height":361,"caption":"France"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/categories\/expert-views\/procedural-playbook-a-la-francaise-the-evidentiary-battlefield\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Procedural playbook \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise: the evidentiary battlefield"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/","name":"CDR News","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#organization","name":"CDR News","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/cdr_logo_header-1.svg","caption":"CDR News"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/CDR_Magazine"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e1a2ddd8246854ce9618e6f10c2fca4d","name":"Robert Li","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/91269b7d659ba8d632d19e8e8e1b05c1598406ffe4f3deacddeed7de6c4ff899?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/91269b7d659ba8d632d19e8e8e1b05c1598406ffe4f3deacddeed7de6c4ff899?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Robert Li"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37281"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37281\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37283,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37281\/revisions\/37283"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16345"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cdr-news.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}