“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.)
Discovery rules are governed under Kansas Statutes, section 60-226 to section 60-237.
“On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-226(b)(2)(B).)
“If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of subsection (b)(2)(A). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.” (See id.)
“On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action and must describe the steps taken by all attorneys or unrepresented parties to resolve the issues in dispute.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-237(a)(1).)
“A motion for an order to a party must be made in the court where the action is pending. A motion for an order to a nonparty must be made in the district where the discovery is or will be taken.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-237(a)(2).)
"[A] trial court is vested with broad discretion in supervising the course and scope of discovery." (See Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC (2019) 56 Kan. App. 2d 1317, 1324; Miller v. Johnson (2012) 295 Kan. 636, 688, 289 P.3d 1098.)
"[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.)
Jan 11, 2024
Active
Johnson County
Johnson County, KS
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
