Document Disclosure in Israeli Lawsuits: A US Party's Guide

American litigants dropped into an Israeli lawsuit tend to arrive braced for one of two things. Either they expect full-blown US discovery, with depositions and document requests grinding on for the better part of a year, or they assume that documents sitting in New York or California are simply out of an Israeli judge's reach. Israel gives them neither. What it gives them instead is a single sworn list, exchanged early, that is far harder to retreat from than any American production, because you swear to it before there has been any argument about what is relevant.

If you are a US resident or a US company being sued in Israel, the disclosure stage is where cases are quietly won and lost, and where the thirty-day clock does the most damage to people managing it across time zones.

What Israeli disclosure actually looks like

Chapter 9 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5779-2018 governs the exchange of information between the parties, and it is compact enough to read in one sitting. The Hebrew term is gilui mismachim (גילוי מסמכים), literally the revealing of documents.

Under Regulation 57, each party serves an affidavit disclosing all documents relating to the matters in dispute that are in that party's possession or control. It is due no later than thirty days after the last pleading is filed, unless the court directs a different period. Regulation 58 then allows thirty days from that exchange for inspection, meaning the other side may photograph or scan the listed documents, at the requesting party's expense. Regulation 56 permits a written questionnaire in the same window, capped at fifty questions, to be answered fully and on affidavit within thirty days.

Where the parties disagree, Regulation 59 is the route: disclosure and inspection disputes are raised by motion, and the court may itself examine a document to rule on a privilege claim rather than take the claim on trust. There is no American-style relevance fishing expedition, but there is also nowhere to hide a document that plainly bears on the dispute.

In Practice: Under Regulation 57 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5779-2018, a party sued in Israel serves a sworn affidavit of documents within 30 days of the last pleading, covering everything in their possession or control wherever it is physically kept. Regulation 58 allows 30 days from the exchange for inspection at the requesting party's cost, and Regulation 56 caps a questionnaire at 50 questions answered on affidavit within 30 days. On a District Court claim the court fee already runs at 2.5% of the sum in dispute under the Courts Regulations (Fees) 5767-2007, which on a NIS 1,000,000 claim is NIS 25,000, so the stakes of a disclosure default are financial as well as procedural.

"Possession or control" reaches your US files

The controlling word throughout is control, and it is not the same as location. A document is yours to disclose if you can obtain it, which is a far wider net than ownership or physical custody.

For a US party that reaches a great deal:

• Emails held on a US provider's servers, because you can retrieve them.
• Records held by your American accountant or bookkeeper on your behalf.
• Files kept in the United States by a company you control, even one incorporated in Delaware.

The instinct to treat "it is in America" as an answer is exactly wrong. An Israeli judge does not need to reach across the Atlantic to seize the file; the obligation runs against you, the party, and you are the one who can produce it. This is where a US party most often gets the analysis backwards, either over-disclosing material they never had to hand over or, more dangerously, under-disclosing on the mistaken belief that foreign-held documents fall outside the case.

The privilege trap: US work-product does not travel

The single sharpest mismatch between the two systems is privilege, and it catches sophisticated American parties precisely because they are sophisticated.

Israeli privilege is defined by Section 48 of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version] 5731-1971, and its categories do not line up with US doctrine. The broad American work-product protection, and the comfortable US assumption that in-house counsel communications are shielded, do not carry over intact. Documents an American lawyer would confidently withhold in a US case are not automatically protected in Tel Aviv.

The safe course runs against the American instinct. Rather than quietly leaving a contested document off the list, you list it on the face of the Regulation 57 affidavit and claim privilege expressly, then litigate the claim under Regulation 59, where the judge can inspect the document privately. Omission from a sworn list is what turns a legal argument you might have won into a credibility problem you cannot, because it looks like concealment rather than a good-faith privilege position.

Swearing the affidavit from the United States

The affidavit is the mechanical bottleneck for anyone outside Israel.

It has to be sworn, and a US-based deponent normally signs before a notary public with an apostille under the Hague Convention, or before an Israeli consular officer at a consulate in the United States. Because the Israeli court works in Hebrew, the substantive exhibits usually need notarial translation before they can be filed. Assembling that package, collecting the documents, having the affidavit executed and apostilled, arranging translation, all inside a thirty-day window and across a seven-to-ten-hour time difference, is the most common reason non-resident defendants file late.

The fix is sequencing. The work has to begin before the pleadings close, not after the deadline is already visible, and where the volume is genuinely large, an extension must be sought in advance. Israeli courts will grant reasonable time, but they grant it forward, not backward.

Getting documents from a US third party: Section 1782

Disclosure runs between the parties. When the documents you need sit with someone who is not a party and who is in the United States, the Israeli court cannot simply order that person to produce them, and this is where a distinctly American tool becomes useful.

Section 1782 of Title 28 of the US Code allows a US federal district court to order a person who resides or is found in its district to produce documents or give testimony for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, on the application of an interested party. An Israeli civil proceeding qualifies as a foreign tribunal. In practice this means your US counsel can apply in the relevant US district to compel a US-based bank, company or witness to hand over material for the Israeli case, which then feeds back into the Israeli record. It cuts both ways: your opponent can use the same route against a US party or witness, so it belongs on the checklist as both a sword and a risk. Coordinating a Section 1782 application with the Israeli timetable is one of the clearest examples of why an Israeli lawyer and US counsel need to be talking to each other early rather than in sequence. For the litigation as a whole, our guide on appealing an Israeli civil judgment from abroad covers what happens after judgment, but disclosure is where the foundation is either laid or lost.

The sanctions, and why the deadline is one-shot

Regulation 60 supplies the teeth. Proper disclosure and inspection are treated as a basic condition of due process, and a party who fails can face an immediate costs order or the striking out of a claim or a defence.

In Practice: Regulation 60 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5779-2018 lets the District Court impose an immediate costs order, which in a contested disclosure motion commonly runs NIS 5,000 to NIS 20,000, or strike out a claim or defence where disclosure is not properly made. Privilege is judged by Section 48 of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version] 5731-1971, which is narrower in places than US protection, and a contested document should be listed and claimed rather than omitted. Extensions of the 30-day window are obtainable from the court but only in advance, so a party who realises on day 28 that the material cannot be gathered in time must move immediately rather than let the deadline lapse.

That is what makes the Israeli disclosure stage effectively one-shot. A US-style production can be supplemented and corrected over months; an Israeli affidavit of documents is sworn once, early, and a defence struck out under Regulation 60 forfeits not only the case but the 2.5% court fee already paid on the claim.

Common Mistake: US parties treat the thirty-day disclosure clock like an American deadline that can be renegotiated after it passes. They spend the month deciding what is really relevant and start collecting documents late, then ask for more time once the window has already closed. In Israel that request lands as a Regulation 60 sanctions issue, not a scheduling courtesy, and a party that has let the deadline slip is arguing to avoid having its pleading struck out rather than simply asking for an extension it could have had for the asking a week earlier.

Practical Checklist

• Diarise the disclosure deadline the moment the last pleading is filed, counting thirty days.
• Begin collecting US-held documents and emails at once, treating "possession or control" broadly rather than narrowly.
• Identify anything you intend to withhold and prepare an express privilege claim under Section 48, listing the document rather than omitting it.
• Book the notary and apostille, or a consular appointment, early, and arrange Hebrew notarial translation of key exhibits.
• If any needed document sits with a US non-party, discuss a Section 1782 application with your US counsel while the Israeli timetable still allows it.
• If the volume cannot realistically be gathered in thirty days, apply for an extension before the deadline, never after.

Speak With an Israeli Attorney

The Israeli disclosure window is short, sworn and effectively one-shot, and for a party in the United States the work of collecting, notarising and translating has to start before the pleadings close. An Israeli litigator can map your possession-or-control exposure, structure the privilege claims so they survive Section 48, and coordinate with your US counsel on any Section 1782 application.

Contact us for a confidential initial consultation.