Motion for Protective Order in Indiana

What Is a Motion for Protective Order?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Protective Order

“The purpose of the trial rules governing discovery is to allow for a liberal discovery process by the exchange of information essential to litigation of the issues, to eliminate surprise, and to promote settlement.” (See Wright v. Mount Auburn Daycare/Preschool (2005) 831 N.E.2d 158, 162.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject-matter involved in the pending action.” (See Bishop v. Goins (1992) 586 N.E.2d 905, 906.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Huber v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff, No. 54A01-1008-CT-558, at *8 (Ind. App. Aug. 30, 2011).)

However, “Trial Rule 26(C) allows a court, upon a party's motion, to take measures to limit discovery when required to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (See Meridian Health Servs. Corp. v. Bell (2016) 61 N.E.3d 348, 354.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Protective Order

“Ind. Trial Rule 26(C) governs motions for protective orders from discovery requests. The rule allows the court in the county wherein a deposition is scheduled to make any order which justice requires to protect a party from oppressive discovery requests.” (See Penn Cent. Corp. v. Buchanan (1999) 712 N.E.2d 508, 511.)

“Indiana Trial Rule 26(F) requires a party to make a reasonable effort to resolve a discovery dispute informally before moving for an order to compel discovery or a protective order.” (See Whitaker v. Becker (2012) 960 N.E.2d 111, 113 n.2.)

“If the item sought to be discovered falls within the scope of the discovery rules and the moving party has complied with the procedural requirements, the court is to grant such motion, subject, of course, to protective orders, if appropriate, under Rule 26(C).” (See Collins v. Bair (1971), 256 Ind. 230, 268 N.E.2d 95; Chustak et al. v. Nipsco (1972) 259 Ind. 390, 396.)

“Under Trial Rule 26(C), the burden is initially on the party seeking the protective order to show ‘good cause’ why such an order is required to protect it from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]" (See Lee v. Lee Urbahns Co. (2007) 876 N.E.2d 361, 367-68.)

“Once a showing of good cause has been made, the burden shifts to the party seeking discovery of protected material to establish that the trial court's protective order constitutes an abuse of discretion.” (See id.)

“If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.” (See Order Amending Rules of Trial Procedure, 94S00-0702-MS-49 (Ind. 9-10-2007), No. 94S00-0702-MS-49, at *6 (Ind. Sep. 10, 2007).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Protective Order

“It is well settled that the trial court is in the best position to weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of parties affected by discovery.” (See Bridgestone Americas Holding v. Mayberry (2006) 854 N.E.2d 355, 364.)

“The unique character of the discovery process requires that the trial court have substantial latitude to fashion protective orders." (See id.)

“Further, Rule 26(C) provides that a trial court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person[.]" (See id.)

“Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in ruling on issues of discovery, which includes protective orders.” (See Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos (2017) 76 N.E.3d 852, 859.)

“On appeal, we will reverse the trial court only upon a showing that the trial court abused this discretion.” (See id.)

“That is, we will reverse the trial court's ruling on a discovery matter only if the court's decision is clearly against the logic and natural inferences to be drawn from the facts and circumstances before the court.” (See id.)

“On appeal, we will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.” (See id.)

“Instead, we simply determine whether the evidence and circumstances before the court served as a rational basis for the trial court's decision.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Protective Order

It is well settled that “discovery requests need not be limited to requests for evidence that may be admissible at trial; indeed, if the discovery requests are germane and there is some reasonable possibility that the answers will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the discovery requests generally are not objectionable.” (See Univ. of Phx., Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, Cause No. 49T10-1411-TA-00065, at *8 (Ind. T.C. Feb. 6, 2017).)

It is also well settled that “Trial Rule 37 permits trial courts to impose various sanctions upon parties failing to comply with discovery.” (See Stout v. A.M. Sunrise Const. Co., Inc. (1987) 505 N.E.2d 500, 503.)

Dockets for Motion for Protective Order in Indiana

Sort By

Special Judge Case for QCSR Counting

Filed

May 03, 2024

Status

05/03/2024 , Decided

Court

Circuit

County

Clark County, IN

Case #