Home

On 16 October 2020, the Applicant filed a motion for production of documents. In the said motion, the Applicant seeks the production of all documents related to the disciplinary sanction imposed on three other staff members investigated in connection with the Applicant’s case “in order to reassess what is alleged against him, for his defence”. (...) UNDT/NBI/2019/108 Order No. 212 (NBI/2020) Page 3 of 5 c. the requested documentation is confidential and its production would violate the rights of individuals who are not party to the present proceedings. (...) Pursuant to art 9.1 of the UNDT Statute, the UNDT may “order production of documents or such other evidence as it deems necessary”.

On 29 April 2021, the Applicant filed a motion for production of evidence. 6. On 5 May 2021, the Respondent responded to the Applicant’s motion objecting to it. 7. (...) The Applicant, to provide detailed justification for the production of the OIOS’ “0019/020 investigation report” referred to in his above-mentioned motion. (...) On the same date, the Applicant submitted that a hearing is warranted, explained the relevance of each testimony he required, provided a detailed justification for the production of OIOS investigation report 0019/20, and submitted a motion for production of evidence of OIOS investigation reports 0413/19 and 0847/20. 11.

If there were such an entitlement, he or she would not need to request the Tribunal to order production and could simply rely on the legal right. (...) Sometimes the party seeking production will not know its contents though it appears to belong to a class of documents likely to be relevant. In such a case it will very likely be “fair” to require production. In cases of sensitivity it may be that production in the first instance is made to the Tribunal and the judge order access to be given or refused after he or she has inspected the document.

The Applicant’s principal contentions regarding circumstances for the production of the Further Information may be summarized as follows: a. (...) Arrangements will be made for the secure and in-person transmittal of the final work product to OHRM at Headquarters in New York; l. (...) An order concerning the production of any document over which confidentiality is sought Case No.

On 11 July 2022, the Applicant also submitted a motion for production of documents. By that motion, the Applicant seeks orders that the Respondent produces: a. (...) Noting that the Applicant did not object to their production, the motion to produce them is allowed. (...) The Applicant’s motion for production of documents is rejected. (Signed) Judge Margaret Tibulya Dated this 22nd day of July 2022 Case No.: UNDT/NBI/2021/087 Order No.:085 (NBI/2022) Page 4 of 4 Entered in the Register on this 22nd day of July 2022 (Signed) Abena Kwakye-Berko, Registrar, Nairobi

SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORDER ON PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE Counsel for Applicant: Michael Horn, Archer & Greiner, PC Counsel for Respondent: Yehuda Goor, AAS/ALD/OHR, UN Secretariat Case No. (...) The Applicant requested the Tribunal to order the production of all evidence including a copy of all reports, CCTV recordings and telephone recordings in connection with the 29 March 2021 incident supporting the issuance of the Notice. 9. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that art. 9.1 of its Statute provides that it “may order production of documents or such other evidence as it deems necessary”.

SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORDER ON APPLICANT’S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE Counsel for the Applicant: Monika Bileris Counsel for the Respondent: Susan Maddox, ALS/OHRM Case No. (...) In his submissions, the Applicant also requested the Tribunal to make three orders requiring the production of additional evidence. 5. In light of the Tribunal’s decisions on these requests the Respondent was not called on to respond. (...) As its probative value is unclear the Tribunal will order its production, initially on an ex parte basis for the Tribunal to evaluate and make a final decision on its admissibility. 16.

A problem with the definition of “judgment” adopted by the respondent is that it clearly does not cover all interlocutory orders, such as orders for production of documents. An order for production is not an interim judgment on the issues in the case in the sense in which that phrase is used in the Dictionary cited. (...) Nor does it suggest that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to order the production of documents is limited in the way suggested. (...) The DTS in art 9 gives power in unqualified language to require the production of documents – [9] 1. The Dispute Tribunal may order production of documents or such other evidence as it deems necessary

Moulana’s request for production of documents, including ruling on his Motion, the Secretary-General submits that there is no right for a party to have documents produced into evidence and no obligation on the UNDT to order such production or rule on motions requesting the production of evidence. (...) Moulana, when it failed to address his requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his Motion. (...) Moulana’s motion for production of documents and further proceedings by another Judge.

SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORDER ON THE APPLICANT’S APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE Counsel for Applicant: Adolph Bishanga Counsel for Respondent: Stephen Margetts, ALS/OHRM, UN Secretariat. (...) Introduction 1.1 By Application dated 18 May 2010, the Applicant requests the Tribunal to order the production of the following documents which are in the possession of the Respondent. (...) Considerations 2.1 The Tribunal, having considered the parties’ submissions and pursuant to Article 18(1) of the UNDT Rules of Procedure, finds that the documents sought by the Applicant are not relevant to any issue in the proceeding and, REJECTS the Applicant’s Motion requesting the Tribunal to order the production of the evidence.