http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/karollus.html
just another suggestion

These German sources cited by K Metzger are hyperbolic in the extreme.
The term, "fishing expedition," is used only as a cautionary or a plaint. It is precisely that the document exchange NOT become an overly intrusive process that the term is evoked. Thus, it may *not* serve as a euphemistic translation of "Ausforschungsbeweis."
Document production demands must be limited to evidence which is *material and relevant* to the issues in controversy.
No lawyer worth his salt sets out to abuse the process by harassing the other side or to find out whether he's got a case through a fishing expedition.
Counsel has ample opportunity to complain of document requests which are too broad, and in an appropriate case, sanctions are awarded against the overzealous lawyer.
A great deal of preparation goes into the pre-trial phase of U.S. litigation in order to: 1) promote settlement and thus *avoid* trial and the waste of judicial resources; 2) narrow the issues for trial (again, judicial resource preservation); 3) avoid surprise at trial (TV court room dramas notwithstanding); 4) arrive at the truth in the matter at hand. The desired result is an orderly and thorough process of truth-finding on what's called "law day."
Most American lawyers will joke about the arduousness of the discovery (or disclosure) process (which includes extrajudicial pre-trial examinations of witnesses under oath), but most are firmly convinced of its ultimate efficiency at achieving its stated goals.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-13 05:29:42 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Here is the apparent German ZPO counterpart to voluntary party discovery and motions for court-ordered discovery (Beweisanträge). Thus, the courts delegate to lawyers, as officers of the court, authority to assemble *investigative evidence\"--which authority they themselves possess--albeit under their continued supervision, and to do so through discovery devices such as EBT\'s, interrogatories (yes, also, but sparingly used), document production requests, even notices to admit (facts), all with a view to promoting settlement, conserving judicial resources, and narrowing the issues for trial.
Section 494a ZPO contains a wrinkle which, if I may say, harbors far greater potential for harassment and abuse than discovery practice under the U.S. system, inasmuch as discovery can be had *before the action is filed(!)* and issue is joined. The court then gives the original applicant a deadline to bring his action, failing which sanctions can be ordered.

http://dejure.org/gesetze/ZPO/485.html
Zivilprozeßordnung

Titel 12 - Selbständiges Beweisverfahren (§§ 485 - 494a) [[Party Discovery]]

Section 487 is significant as the counterpart to the requirement mentioned above that the *SCOPE* of the inquiry (whether relative to document production or pre-trial examination of witnesses) not be overbroad and that the application for a discovery order be narrowed by considerations of *materiality* and *relevance*. Thus:

§ 487
Inhalt des Antrages

Der Antrag muß enthalten:

1.die Bezeichnung des Gegners;
**2.die Bezeichnung der Tatsachen, über die Beweis erhoben werden soll;
3.die Benennung der Zeugen oder die Bezeichnung der übrigen nach § 485 zulässigen Beweismittel;
**4.die Glaubhaftmachung der Tatsachen, die die Zulässigkeit des selbständigen Beweisverfahrens und die Zuständigkeit des Gerichts begründen sollen.

Quote from case authority:
Die Beschwerde rügt zu Recht, dass das Berufungsgericht verfahrensfehlerhaft die Erhebung von Sachverständigenbeweis [zur Frage dessen Gesundheit] abgelehnt hat...Der Senat versteht die Ausführungen des Verwaltungsgerichtshofs so, dass dieser in dem Beweisbegehren des Klägers zwar einen an sich erheblichen, aber deshalb *unzulässigen Beweisermittlungs- oder Ausforschungsbeweis* sieht, weil keine hinreichenden tatsächlichen Anhaltspunkte dafür bestehen, dass dem Kläger bei einer Rückkehr in sein Heimatland mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit Gesundheitsgefahren im Sinne des § 53 Abs. 5 Satz 1 AuslG drohen. Die Ablehnung des Beweisbegehrens und das Unterlassen weiterer eigener Sachverhaltsaufklärung mit dieser Begründung wäre indessen nur gerechtfertigt in Bezug auf Tatsachenbehauptungen, für deren Wahrheitsgehalt nicht wenigstens eine gewisse Wahrscheinlichkeit spricht.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-14 06:47:48 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

More on \"discovery\" vs. \"disclosure\" and K Metzger\'s conclusion that \"discovery\" involves showing the other side what you\'ve got. That\'s backwards. The Federal Rules use the term, \"disclosure,\" but in practice it still comes down to getting from the other side and keeping your own stuff close to the vest, narrowing the scope wherever feasible, and controlling the damage documents in your client\'s possession or his volunteering too much testimony can do to your case. Counsel goes through client files down to the last handwritten squiggle to assess whether the opponent is unavoidably entitled to it or they can \"keep it out.\"
Finally, if lawyers in a federal litigation write \"disclosure\" in their motion or responsive papers, informally, they say \"discovery,\" and you can be sure they think it.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-14 06:52:47 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Since this point is obscured in K Metzger\'s first answer, let me clarify that \"discovery\" or \"disclosure\" is a party/counsel process which involves the court/judge only on rulings and similar supervision relative to that process. The court/judge does not conduct discovery. The court/judge reviews evidence and examines witnesses called, usually by the parties, to testify.

This is part of pre-trial discovery in the USA, and it's the only word that makes sense for me as a translation of 'Ausforschungsbeweis' (the text says 'spricht man von').

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-12 18:45:21 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Or maybe \'interrogatory evidence\'...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-13 07:41:06 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Continuing the note under Maureen Holm\'s opinion below: either the German is intelligently written and means \'there is a term referring to discovery that means \"Ausforschungsbeweis\"\', or it is badly written. In the latter case we can\'t do much about it. In the former, I can\'t think of anything between interrogatories (and depositions) and fishing expedition. Both are equally possible and neither is quite convincing. It can\'t be \'discovery\' because that was used at the beginning of the sentence.
I have just changed my mind....see below!

Webster says:
"DISCOVERY: the disclosure in practice or in pretrial procedures by a party to an action or proceeding of facts or documents which will afford material evidence in determining the rights of the party asking it"

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-12 19:03:02 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

so perhaps
either \"discovery procedure/process\"?

This is what Germans mean when they say "Ausforschungsbeweis". In this case, however, it is quite possible that the "Ausforschungsbeweis" is already an imprecise translation of an American legal term. In this case, please disregard my proposal.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-12 21:55:19 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry! Verbis was first.

Have just changed my mind as I discovered I was barking up the wrong tree. 'Man spricht von' refers not to U.S. usage but German usage. Ausforschungsbeweis is a term in German procedural law referring to something you aren't allowed to do in Germany.
Thus 'This is what is known in Germany as purely exploratory questioning (Ausforschungsbeweis; not permitted under German procedural law)'.
Google suggests and Romain, both the old and new, confirms:
(purely) exploratory quetioning of a witness (seeking to prove a point by improper exploratory offers of evidence or endeavouring to induce opponent to disclose a point in one's favour'
Google should provide more definitions in German.

I’m adding this note based on some input from a colleaque who’s a lawyer. As I understand it discovery consists of depositions (oral) and interrogatories (written) but that is not Beweisaufnahme. Beweisaufnahme is the taking of evidence by the court, and discovery is when the two parties show each other what evidence they have. That is a big difference between U.S./English and German procedure. There is, however, a taking of evidence by the court in the trial in common law systems, but this discovery precedes it.

Here's Dietl on discovery:
-
discovery Entdeckung; Offenlegung, Bekanntgabe, Auskunftserteilung; (VersR) Anzeige; (Zivilprozeß) Erforschung, Ausforschung; erzwingbare Bekanntgabe von für den Rechtsstreit bedeutsamen Tatsachen und Urkunden (an die Gegenpartei vor Beginn des Prozesses); (BergR) Fund

Romain: 'Ausforschung': exploratory soundings, sounding out, seeking disclosure by adversary of facts supporting a case.
It is possible that the sentence means 'The U.S. pre-trial discovery is what we in Germany would call Ausforschungsbeweis'.