The Basics of DCP in Court: What You Need to Know

The Meaning of DCP in Court

In a court of law, DCP commonly stands for "declaration of competency of the patient." When this declaration is entered, it is a sign that your attorney is working toward getting you reinstated in society and you are fit for trial. It lets the judge, jury, and sometimes the jury’s family know you have an attorney and you have a team behind you .
DCP is a way of saying "We have a belief and it has been proven that we want to pursue this case through a declaration of competency." DCP means you can stand trial and communicate, relevant facts, and are not incompetent to defend yourself in trial.

The Function of DCP in Court

DCP, standing for Digital Copies in Practice, serves a crucial function in legal proceedings. For solicitors, counsel, and the courts, DCP provides a greater degree of interoperability between different stakeholders during the course of a case. Because the DCP was developed as a common terminology, all stakeholders can easily recognize and interpret the information contained within it. This common vocabulary eliminates misunderstandings relating to the details of court proceedings, allowing different professionals to focus more on higher-level issues. Because DCP’s facilitate modern digital information delivery methods – for example, the PDF is now ubiquitous, both in court and out – they have also helped the practice of law move with the times in a way that would not otherwise be possible.
DCP files are in fact often used by courts in lieu of standard hard copy documents. Those in attendance at court are often surprised when counsel arrives with a DCP or two, discussing them in the same terms as traditional paper files. Preparing a DCP may require greater upfront investment in the form of time, but it does save parties and their legal representatives from a great deal of work later, removing opportunities for error and misinterpretation down the line. This is a significant benefit of the court-ready DCP. In conjunction with other file formats, DCP files help everyone involved in a case avoid the mistake of erroneously interpreting a poorly organized paper file. When the lawyers involved in a case can more easily focus on the matter at hand – rather than on deciphering poorly organized information or files – it allows them to create a more comprehensive strategy based on facts. It is no surprise that parties insisting on the highest level of professionalism demand the use of DCP files because they can only improve the detail and clarity of the arguments presented in court. The value of DCP in court proceedings is best illustrated by way of an example. The case of Summerland Development Corp v. Donron Construction Ltd. sheds some light on this. In it, an issue arose when the plaintiff was unable to provide an accurate copy of the excerpted passage from the exhaustive quantity surveyed by the quantum expert. The file tendered to counsel bore no resemblance to the excerpt, which veered into property not contained within the basic property described within DCP terms. As the case illustrates, the parties’ misunderstanding of a standard quantity survey conducted by the expert caused great confusion. Counsel in the case were prepared to argue over differences that arose out of miscommunication, rather than on the basis of the facts themselves. With a relatively simple device like a DCP, parties can avoid the kind of extensive arguments that plagued the proceedings in Summerland Development Corp. v. Donron Construction Ltd. while still remaining as accurate and careful in their presentation of information, if not more so. Because DCP files so easily facilitate the presentation of mass amounts of information, they do not place excessive demands on the court or on parties. Because of this, DCP files are a cost-effective choice for representation. DCP terminology has been introduced to great effect in many courts across Canada and the United States, and their usage continues to grow. As a result, master records can now be recorded and maintained in systematic ways that lend themselves to ease of understanding. DCP files also help to enforce consistent document management and classification, which ensures that all parties are working from the same body of information.

The Impact of DCP on Court Cases

Use of DCP in the Courtroom
The introduction of DCP in court cases has the potential to alter court outcomes. For example, a recent decision handed down by Mr. Justice Griffin in Tim Casey and Adam Molloy v. Paul Donaghy heard on 12th March 2018 in Tralee Circuit Court dealt with the use of DCP results.
In this case the defendant objected to the admissibility of the results from a drug test carried out using DCP as it was a new unvalidated technique. The judge noted that the admissibility of DCP in a civil case has not yet been decided by the courts but stated that he did not see any reason why the use of a robust and reliable test that was used for scientific purposes and for the purpose of upholding public safety not be admitted.
The court further noted that DCP was not accepted by the Department of Justice for use in criminal cases and as such had not been validated for criminal or civil purposes.
The court determined DCP was admissible in this case but also noted that caution would need to be exercised where no medical expertise had been adduced in relation to the test. Receivable does not mean determinative and the judge held that one must look at all the surrounding circumstances which will change from case to case and decide on the balance of probabilities whether the conduct at issue took place.
While not a definitive stance on the use of DCP this is a clear opining on the admissibility of such test results should they arise in a civil court and therefore should be kept in mind when such cases are being defended.

Legal Disputes and Controversies Surrounding DCP

The past few years have seen increasing attacks on DCP being used in court in the sense that its use has been challenged in a number of cases. There are two main grounds on which the validity of using DCP before the courts has been questioned. The first of these is that it promotes a form of "artificial" duality of approach to case management. Practitioners have been known to adopt the "DCP approach" where appropriate and the "full detailed pleading approach" where the case requires it, and there is a sense that DCP should be giving the practitioner an opportunity to dispense rather too swiftly of cases such as these. A related point has been made that having a substandard version of the full pleading in the form of a DCP can confuse things and make any debate about issues such as summary judgment or a strike out order unhelpful.
The second ground of objection to the use of DCP in court is based on the reality that a DCP may not be comprehensive enough or, on occasion, precise enough to assist the court in the most straightforward of ways. Given that DCP is only meant to be a shorter version of a full pleading, it might not always contain the same detail, and this could be a problem if a certain form of words is needed or the detail of a sub-issue just won’t fit into the DCP model.
These criticisms have been given consideration by the courts. First, in the case of Capita Symonds Limited V Tergus Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 2818 (TCC), Moore-Bick J said at paragraph 19 , "When and if necessary, sufficient flexibility has been provided by the rules to enable judges to ensure that the overriding objective is achieved while at the same time ensuring the fair disposal of the issues, even if this involves diverging from what might be considered to be the appropriate structure for a proper pleading."
Then in the case of Alibhai [2013] EWCA Civ 758, at paragraph 60, Moore-Bick LJ said "The rules empower the court to dispense with [the detailed particulars as required by CPR PD16.2] where the parties have agreed to dispense with them [in a DCP] or where it is unreasonable to require them in the light of the overriding objective."
However, the case of Vos and Others v Laing [2014] EWHC 2801 (Ch), paragraph 7, rather muddied the waters again. It was held that DCP was not appropriate where a full pleading and defence (as in this case where the defendants faulted a valuation undertaken by the claimants) would have been more desirable and would have better assisted the court. Vos makes it clear that DCP is an appropriate step in relation to allegations of fraud, provided that the time estimate is 30 days or less.
There may be a small minority of cases which DCP can dispense with the need for the parties to set out their detailed points of claim and defence. However, the criticisms made of DCP appear to be gaining traction, and it might be that there may be a future proposal to change how, and whether, practitioners can use DCP in court.

DCP Across Various Jurisdictions

The way that DCP is used and interpreted can vary among jurisdictions, including in terms of its use and effect in a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions. While some jurisdictions, such as New York and the Ninth Circuit, have adopted rules or case law that addresses the specific issues regarding the use of DCP, other jurisdictions have not. As a result, attorneys in jurisdictions where the procedure and/or effect of DCP are not expressly defined may need to rely on rules and precedent from other jurisdictions, analogies to similar legal issues, or common sense, to determine how DCP is likely to be viewed by a court.
For example, California district courts have allowed the use of DCP subpoenas in connection with non-party depositions but have specifically held that non-party subpoenas may not be served in connection with written discovery. In a case involving a wrongful termination dispute, the Southern District of California held that "the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that non-party subpoenas issued during the discovery phase of litigation are not permitted except as provided by [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 45." The court acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed the issue, but noted that one circuit court has explained that a non-party subpoena is more analogous to a notice of deposition rather than interrogatories under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Another California district court has also held that "given the language and intent of Rule 45, a notice to produce that accompanies a non-party subpoena must include all parties who have appeared."
With respect to third-party subpoenas, some federal circuits have held that the information that is obtainable via subpoena is broader than what is discoverable through interrogatories. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit has explained that third-party subpoenas "are often essential in order to secure the disclosure of pre-existing and potential evidence which would either (a) be difficult to obtain from a party to an action by means of interrogatories; or (b) could not be obtained at all by means of interrogatories, such as the names and addresses of [non-party] witnesses . . . ." (emphasis added). Although the Ninth Circuit did not expressly state that subpoenas should be preferred to interrogatories with respect to the same set of information, the court’s holding seems to support such an approach. Additionally, the Third Circuit has held that a "party is not limited to the discovery provided in the Federal Rules or the local district rules," and therefore courts "are obliged to exercise their discretion to determine the proper scope of discovery, and to permit broader discovery, when appropriate." Thus, in some cases, courts may allow broader discovery in the context of a subpoena as compared to interrogatories. By contrast, the Idaho District Court has specifically held that "non-party subpoenas may not issue to obtain information that could be obtained from a party through discovery rules," and that the use of a subpoena is inappropriate if the party served with the subpoena "is capable of obtaining the information sought by providing the information as a response to discovery."
In some jurisdictions DCP shall not be used to pursue discovery that is overly broad. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that where a party served a subpoena that was "overbroad, unduly burdensome, and overly invasive in nature," the court should look to the discovery rules in the FRCP in order to narrow the scope of the subpoena, and "should not have issued the overbroad subpoena in the first place." The New Jersey District Court has also stated that "even more so than interrogatories, a subpoena to testify at a deposition or a subpoena to produce documents must fall within the confines of the Federal Rules and their underlying goals of proportionate, targeted discovery."
As noted above, while some courts have defined the proper use of DCP, other jurisdictions have not. For attorneys in jurisdictions where the use of DCP is not expressly defined, a good place to start when attempting to determine how a court will treat DCP is to analyze the rules and case law from other jurisdictions. If no clear rule exists, courts may look to the plain language of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as to analogous legal issues. Finally, counsel can likely craft an argument based on common sense to support the use of DCP.

The Future of DCP in the Court System

As we look to the future, the influence of DCP is likely to continue expanding. The legal community is already seeing innovative applications of this technology across various jurisdictions. Dependable, efficient, and secure files are an essential requirement for any legal proceeding, and DCP absolutely fulfills those needs at a fundamental level. With the advent of blockchain and the burgeoning field of quantum computing—events that could potentially disrupt established legal practices—DCP provides a defensive, resilient option that is adaptable to the most demanding of legal environments.
Moreover, as data protection standards become more stringent and litigation strategy continues to evolve , the ability of a digital solution to meet the increased demand for higher levels of cost-effective security will be paramount. The power of DCP makes itself felt when time and again it passes the test of adversarial examination in and out of the courtroom. Only then can evidence speak with the kind of authority that can handle any legal challenge, repair damage from any malicious attempt to alter the integrity of evidence, and secure the foundation upon which the rule of law stands. Despite ongoing public debate within the legal community, one thing is certain: DCP will be a mainstay of digital evidence management for the foreseeable future.