Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in Arkansas

Background

“The goal of discovery is to permit a litigant to obtain whatever information he may need to prepare adequately for issues that may develop without imposing an onerous burden on his adversary.” (Heinrich v. Harp's Food Stores, Inc. (1996) 52 Ark. App. 165, 169 [finding “[t]hat goal was not met in this case and appellant was denied a fair trial.”])

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“If a party fails to answer an interrogatory or fails to respond to a request for inspection or to permit inspection, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer or inspection.” (Memphis Scale Works, Inc. v. McNorton (2020) 595 S.W.3d 412, 416 citing Ark.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2).)

“If a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the circuit court may make such orders as are just, including prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing the designated matters into evidence; striking out pleadings or parts thereof; dismissing the action; rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party; treating the disobedience as contempt of court; and requiring the disobedient party or his attorney to pay the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees caused by the failure to comply.” (Memphis Scale Works, Inc. v. McNorton (2020) 595 S.W.3d 412, 416 citing Ark. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).)

Evasive Or Incomplete Responses and Objections to Interrogatories

Under ARCP Rule 33(a), a party is required to answer interrogatories propounded or file objections to them to her/him within 30 days. (See, Loosey v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. (1988) 23 Ark. App. 137, 141.)

Note, however, that “objections to interrogatories are not answers.” (Piercy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1993) 311 Ark. 424, 433.)

Indeed, Subsection (a)(3) of Rule 37 provides that ‘an evasive or incomplete answer or response is to be treated as a failure to answer or respond.’” (Calandro v. Parkerson (1998) 333 Ark. 603, 607, citing id.)

Protective Order In Conjunction with Refusal to Answer Interrogatories

“A party claiming a privilege to refuse to answer interrogatories may obtain a protective order under Rule 26(c), which would protect the party from discovery or from inquiry into certain matters. Rule 37(d) states that the failure to serve answers or objections to interrogatories ‘may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided in Rule 26(c).’” (Dunkin v. Citizens Bank of Jonesboro (1987) 291 Ark. 588, 590-91.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“[T]rial courts have wide discretion in all matters pertaining to discovery and we will not reverse their decision absent abuse of that discretion which is prejudicial to the appellant.” (Heinrich v. Harp's Food Stores, Inc. (1996) 52 Ark. App. 165, 168 citing Derrick v. Mexico Chiquito, Inc. (1991) 307 Ark. 217, 819 S.W.2d 4; Fraser v. Harp's Food Stores, Inc. (1986) 290 Ark. 186.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

Ark.R.Civ.P. 26(c) [2017], requires a party filing a motion to compel discovery “to state that it ‘in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties.’” (See, id; see also, Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Francis (2018) 549 S.W.3d 362, 370.)

The Court’s Decision

“It is not grounds for objection to a discovery request that the information sought will not be admissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Rose Care, Inc. v. Ross (2005) 91 Ark. App. 187, 211 citing Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) [2004].)

“[A] party objecting to discovery requests is allowed to seek protective relief pursuant to Rule 26(c), and [reviewing courts have] specifically noted that Rule 37(d) allows for a party's failure to respond to discovery to be excused where a protective order has been requested.” (Cooper Tire Rubber Co. v. Phillips Cty. Cir. Ct. (2011) 381 S.W.3d 67, 74 [internal citation omitted].)