Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Missouri

Background

“A motion to compel, seeking production of documents in an unverified motion, is akin to a discovery tool in an open case.” (See State ex rel. Cullen v. Harrell (2019) 567 S.W.3d 633, 642.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action[.]” (See Coffman Grup. v. Sweeney, (2005) 219 S.W.3d 763, 766.)

“The discovery need not be admissible at trial, but rather must appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

“The party moving to obtain discovery must establish the relevance of the information in order to obtain it.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A trial court does not have discretion to deny discovery of matters that are relevant to a lawsuit and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, unless such matters are work product or privileged.” (See Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesterfield Mgmt. Assocs. (2013) 407 S.W.3d 621, 633-34.)

“Rule 56.01(b) excludes privileged material from discovery. Privileged material is any professionally-oriented communication between attorney and client, whether or not it is made in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” (See Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesterfield Mgmt. Assocs. (2013) 407 S.W.3d 621, 634.)

“The communication must be made in order to secure legal advice in order to be privileged communication.” (See Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesterfield Mgmt. Assocs. (2013) 407 S.W.3d 621, 634.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Trial courts have broad discretion in administering rules of discovery, which this Court will not disturb absent an abuse of discretion.” (See Sanders v. Ahmed (2012) 364 S.W.3d 195, 213.)

“However, a trial court has no discretion to deny discovery of matters that are relevant to a lawsuit and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence when the matters are neither work product nor privileged.” (See Sanders v. Ahmed (2012) 364 S.W.3d 195, 213.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a waiver of the attorney-client privilege may be found where the client places the subject matter of the privileged communication in issue.” (See Sappington v. Miller (1992) 821 S.W.2d 901, 904.)

It is well settled that “good cause must be shown before the trial court may enter a protective order. Of course, the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether good cause exists.” (See Brown v. McIbs, Inc. (1986) 722 S.W.2d 337, 342-43.)