LR Drill Set 11, Question 12
Principle: If a significant hardship is caused by(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(12 more words not shown)
- AThe party on(19 more words not shown)
- BThe writer has(14 more words not shown)
- CThe article would(11 more words not shown)
- DSeveral revelations in(10 more words not shown)
- EThe writer and(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Where is the hardship?
The rule doesn't say courts should cancel every subpoena when the evidence will eventually be available elsewhere. It starts with a significant hardship caused by obeying the subpoena. Only then do we consider the exception: if the relevant evidence can be obtained only through this subpoena, the rule doesn't require cancellation.
The application handles the access question. The article will be published before trial, so its information will become available without forcing the writer to hand it over through this subpoena.
But what bad consequence would handing it over cause the writer? Being asked to release something unpublished isn't automatically a significant hardship. Think of the kind of consequence we'd need to establish—loss of work or income, for example.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to justify canceling the subpoena under this rule. The missing fact should show why complying would impose a real hardship. Then the planned publication can explain why the exception doesn't prevent cancellation.
Working the answers
- A
Being a source for part of the article doesn't explain how obeying the subpoena would harm the writer. It might tell us the requesting party already knows some information, but the rule's hardship condition still hasn't been established. We need more than a connection between that party and the article.
- B
The subpoena concerns this article. Whether the writer has additional relevant information elsewhere doesn't show that producing the article would be a hardship. B neither explains that harm nor changes the fact that the article itself will become available before trial.
- CCorrect
If giving the article to the court makes it unpublishable, compliance would destroy the professional writer's opportunity to publish that work. The time and work invested would lose their intended professional use, potentially including the income or career benefit from publication. That gives us the significant hardship the application lacked.
Without the compelled release, the article is expected to be published before trial. Its evidence would then be accessible anyway. So the rule's two parts now fit: complying imposes hardship, and the evidence isn't available only through this subpoena. Canceling it is justified under the stated principle.
- D
Relevance helps explain why someone might want the article as evidence. It doesn't establish why the subpoena should be canceled. The rule allows relevant evidence to be obtained through other means rather than forcing a hardship. D leaves the hardship missing and doesn't show that the subpoena is the only route to the evidence.
- E
The writer and two editors may be the only people with full knowledge now. But the article is expected to be available to everyone before trial. Presently limited access doesn't establish that the subpoena is the only way to obtain the information, and it still doesn't show the hardship required to apply the rule.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.