试论我国民事审前证据交换制度例外规则的完善——以英美证据开示例外范围比较为研究进路  

Study on exceptions to civil discovery-a comparative study based on the observation of the practice of the U.K.and the U.S.

作　　者：丁朋超 

机构地区：[1]复旦大学法学院,上海200438

出　　处：《证据科学》2017年第2期183-192,共10页Evidence Science

基　　金：中国法学会2016年度部级法学研究课题<审判团队模式实证研究>的阶段性成果;项目编号:CLS(2016)Y05;广东省"质量工程"建设项目:基于工业法为导向的法学专业综合改革

摘　　要：证据开示制度有利于明确争点,固定证据,提高诉讼效率以及突袭性裁判的防止。但证据开示并非是所有证据的开示,应当有所选择,这也是域外的通行做法。我国新《民事诉讼法》未规定证据开示的例外范围,实践中极易导致特定社会关系的破坏。同时,也不利于准备程序争点整理、纾解诉源等功能的有效发挥,往往为庭审程序的散漫化及庭审效率的低下埋下伏笔。因此,我国《民事诉讼法》在下次修改时应当增加证据开示范围的立法内容,明确证据交换的例外范围,免除特殊人员的作证义务,并明确违反证据开示制度的法律后果。同时,为保证证据开示制度及其例外规则的良好运行,应在争点整理程序、摸索证明等制度上予以完善。Discovery can help to narrow down disputed issues for trial, reveal evidence, improve litigation efficiency, and prevent unfair speedy judgement. However, discovery does not mean a party should obtain any information from the opposing party. There should be some limits. It is a common rule in foreign jurisdictions. The fact that PRC Civil Procedure Law does not specify the exceptions to civil discovery can easily lead to destruction of social relations. Furthermore, it can setback the process of narrowing down disputed issues for trial or sorting out claims, and thus set the stage for loose trial proceeding and inefficient trial. Therefore, the following issues should be added in Civil Procedure Law： scope of discovery, discovery limits, and individual privilege from being called to testify and sanctions for violating discovery rules. At the same time, in order to ensure the application of discovery procedure and its exception rules, efforts should be put to perfect rules of determining disputed issues and rules of fishing expedition （Ausforschungsbeweis）.

关 键 词：证据开示 例外范围 特权免证 工作成果豁免 争点整理 摸索证明 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]