Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in Maine

“The scope of discovery is any matter that is relevant to the pending action.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Mahoney v. York Hosp., 2014 Me. Super. LEXIS 37, *2 (Me. Super. Ct. Feb. 18, 2014); Harris Mgmt., Inc. v. Paul Coulombe, PGC1, LLC, Docket No.: BCD-CV-14-60, at *9 (Me. Super. July 1, 2015).)

“Discovery has the dual purpose of assisting in identifying admissible evidence and in identifying further areas for inquiry that may lead to development of admissible evidence.” (See Mitchell v. Kieliszek (2006) 900 A.2d 719, 726.)

“Thus, M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), regarding the proper scope of discovery states: (1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” (See id.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

“The Maine Rules of Civil Procedure are intended to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. To that end, liberal discovery is encouraged as a means to eliminate the sporting theory of justice and to enforce full disclosure between the parties." (See Pinkham v. Dep't of Transp. (2016) Me. 74, 9; M.R. Civ. P. 1; St. Paul Ins. Co. v. Hayes (2001) ME 71, ¶ 8, 770 A.2d 611.)

Rules for Filing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

Rule 26 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to compel discovery.

“A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows…(1) A motion for an order to a party or a deponent shall be made under Rule 26(g). ” (See Me. R. Civ. P. 37 (See Me. R. Civ. P. 37(a).)

“On application under Rule 26(g) 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 expense. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations and remedies of Rule 26(c). The court may specify conditions for the discovery and shall impose on the requesting party the reasonable expense of producing such electronically stored information.” (See Me. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(6).)

“No written motions under Rule 26 through 37 shall be filed without the prior approval of a justice or judge of the court in which the action is pending. The moving party shall first confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues in dispute. If the dispute is not resolved by agreement, the moving party shall request a hearing from the clerk by letter. The letter shall succinctly and without argument or citation describe the nature of the dispute and the relief requested.” (See Me. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).)

“In cases involving objections to interrogatories or document requests, the moving party shall attach to the letter copies of only the specific objections in question and the specific interrogatories or requests to which objection has been made. In exigent circumstances a request for a hearing may be made to the clerk by telephone or in person.” (See id.)

“The request for a hearing constitutes a representation to the court, subject to Rule 11, that the conference with the opposing party has taken place and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. The clerk shall inform the moving party of the manner, date and time of the hearing. The moving party shall provide prompt notice of the hearing to all the other parties. If the hearing is to be conducted by telephone conference or video conference, the moving party shall connect all other parties who elect to participate and shall initiate the telephone or video conference call to the court.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“The scope of discovery is always within the discretion of the court.” (See Picher v. Roman Cath. Bishop of Portland (2013) ME 99, ¶ 6, 82 A.3d 101; In re Estate of Kerwin (2020) 239 A.3d 623, 628.)

"Discovery orders are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion." (See Selby v. Cumberland County (2002) ME 80, ¶ 12 n.11, 796 A.2d 678; In re Estate of Kerwin (2020) 239 A.3d 623, 628.)

"A party aggrieved by a discovery order must show both that the trial judge committed error in the discovery ruling despite the considerable discretion vested in the judge and that the discovery order affected the outcome of the action to his prejudice." (See also Jacques v. Pioneer Plastics, Inc. (1996) 676 A.2d 504, 509; In re Estate of Kerwin (2020) 239 A.3d 623, 628.)

“A court abuses its discretion if it exceed[s] the bounds of the reasonable choices available to it." (See Capelety v. Estes (2023) Me. 50, 12; Sager v. Town of Bowdoinham (2004) ME 40, ¶ 11, 845 A.2d 567.)

“We note that a determination of an abuse of discretion does not equate to a finding of bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, or misconduct by the judge. Trial judges are called upon to make multiple, swift decisions-in 'real' time- during the course of trials and hearings." (See id; State v. Hussein (2019) ME 74, ¶ 17, 208 A.3d 752.)

“Nonetheless, [a] trial court ruling, even if in error, will not result in vacating the judgment if the error was 'harmless'-that is, if the error did not result in substantial injustice or affect substantial rights." (See Capelety v. Estes (2023) Me. 50, 12; Guardianship of David P. (2018) ME 151, ¶ 12, 196 A.3d 896.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“It is well established that discovery is not a limitless mechanism to obtain information. Privileged information, although often relevant, is neither discoverable nor admissible at trial. Rules of privilege are designed to keep out some portion of the truth in order to foster relationships that as a matter of social policy are deemed to deserve protection." (See Estate of Kennelly v. Mid Coast Hosp. (2020) 239 A.3d 604, 612; Pinkham v. Dep't of Transp. (2016) Me. 74; Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 501.1 at 206 (6th ed. 2007); M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).)

It is also well settled that “the trial court has broad discretion to sanction a party for failing to comply with discovery orders, including an order made pursuant to Rule 26(g). The factors that the court must consider: include, but are not limited to, the purpose of the specific rule at issue, the party's conduct throughout the proceedings, the party's bona fides in its failure to comply, prejudice to other parties, and the need for the orderly administration of justice. The court must also consider the purposes to be served by imposing sanctions, including penalizing the noncompliant party, remedying the effects of the noncompliance, and deterring similar conduct by the offending party, as well as by others.” (See Roberts v. MECAP, LLC, No. CV-20-091, at *1 (Me. Super. June 24, 2021); Harris v. Soley (2000) 756 A.2d 499, 504.)