“A district court has the authority to focus discovery, prevent abusive discovery, and to insure confidentiality when necessary.” (See Purdum v. Purdum (2013) 48 Kan. App. 2d 938, 989.)
"The purpose of discovery is to eliminate the element of surprise from trials, simplify issues and procedures by full disclosure to all parties of anticipated evidence and factual and legal issues, and to consider such matters as may aid disposition of action." (See Poplin v. Poplin, No. 123, at *1 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2021); Ryan v. Kansas Power & Light Co. (1991) 249 Kan. 1, 11-12, 815 P.2d 528.)
“Thus, statutes and rules governing discovery and pretrial procedures are to be broadly construed to accomplish their intended objectives." (See id; Burkhart v. Philsco Products Co. (1987) 241 Kan. 562, 570, 738 P.2d 433.)
“Under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-226(b), which defines the scope of discovery, [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." (See Short v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc. (2019) 441 P.3d 1058, 1068-69.)
"[T]he scope of relevancy in a discovery proceeding is broader than the scope of relevancy at trial." (See id; Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty (2010) 291 Kan. 597, 620, 244 P.3d 642.)
“This is because [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (See Short v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc. (2019) 441 P.3d 1058, 1068-69; Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty (2010) 291 Kan. 597, 620, 244 P.3d 642.)
“Kansas law of civil procedure provides that parties may obtain discovery by depositions, interrogatories, production of documents or things and requests for admissions. The frequency of use of these methods is not limited.” (See K.S.A. 60-226(a); State ex Rel. Miller v. Richardson (1981) 229 Kan. 234, 237.)
However, “K.S.A. Supp. 60-226(c) authorizes a district court to exercise its general supervisory powers over discovery . . . by making any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." (See Stephan v. Martin, No. 115, at *1 (Kan. Ct. App. June 16, 2017); Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty (2010) 291 Kan. 597, 622, 244 P.3d 642.)
“Where the parties have conflicting interests in material sought to be discovered, the protective power of the court may be sought by a party and the court must balance the litigant's interest in obtaining the requested information with the resisting party's interest, as well as the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the material.” (See In re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita (2004) 277 Kan. 487, 514.)
Protective Orders are governed under subsection 60-226 of the Kansas statutes.
“A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending, as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the district court where the deposition will be taken.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-226(c).)
“The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action and must describe the steps taken by all attorneys or unrepresented parties to resolve the issues in dispute.” (See id.)
“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense…” (See id.)
“If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partly denied the court may, on just terms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-226(c)(2).)
“When a trial court orders production of confidential records, it has a duty to limit the availability and use of documents by carefully drawn protective provisions.” (See Wesley Medical Center v. Clark (1983) 234 Kan. 13, Syl. ¶¶ 13, 14, 669 P.2d 209; In re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita (2004) 277 Kan. 487, 514.)
“[M]odification of a protective order, like its original entry, is left to the discretion of the district court.” (See Hernandez v. Pistotnik (2021) 494 P.3d 203, 216.)
“In striking a balance between discovery and nondisclosure, courts should consider the nature of the proceeding, whether the deponent is a party, whether the information sought is available from other sources, and whether the information sought goes to the heart of the claim.” (See Kloster v. Hancock (In re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.) (2017) 55 Kan. App. 2d 161, 182.)
"[O]rders concerning discovery will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion." (See Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC (2019) 56 Kan. App. 2d 1317, 1324; In re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita (2004) 277 Kan. 487, 513, 86 P.3d 513.)
“A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if:
(See Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC (2019) 56 Kan. App. 2d 1317, 1324; Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co. (2015) 302 Kan. 66, 74, 350 P.3d 1071.)
It is well settled that “this court has often stated the scope of discovery is to be liberally construed so as to provide the parties with information essential to litigation in order to insure the parties a fair trial. The scope of relevancy in a discovery proceeding is broader than the scope of relevancy at trial. Relevancy includes information which may be useful in preparation for trial. A request for discovery would be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit.” (See Gleichenhaus v. Carlyle (1979) 226 Kan. 167, 170.)
It is also well settled that “the discovery rules were promulgated to expedite litigation, to safeguard against surprise, to prevent delay, and to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–237, the trial judge has the ability to sanction parties who fail to comply with the discovery rules. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling a disclosure from another party. The district court may then order the other party to comply with that discovery request. If that party fails to comply with the district court's discovery order, the court may issue sanctions on that party. The trial judge is empowered to impose such sanctions as are just under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–237(b)(2), which lists several possible sanctions that a court may impose on a disobedient party, including rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.” (See First Gen. Servs. of Kan. City, Inc. v. Nedrow (2013) 312 P.3d 398; Vickers v. City of Kansas City (1975) 216 Kan. 84, 90, 531 P.2d 113.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
