A motion to compel discovery is a legal request made by one party in a lawsuit when the opposing party has failed or refused to provide requested information or documents relevant to the case. By seeking the court's intervention to enforce compliance with discovery obligations, this motion aims to promote a fair and efficient litigation process. Understanding the motion to compel discovery is crucial for grasping the complexities of the litigation process and the strategies used by attorneys to gather essential information for their clients' cases.
Under Ark.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2), “only ‘the discovering party’ may move for an order compelling discovery.” (Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Francis (2018) 549 S.W.3d 362…)
“[A reviewing court] will not reverse a circuit court's discovery ruling absent a showing that additional discovery would have changed the outcome of the case.” (Williams v. Baptist Health (2020) 598 S.W.3d 487…)
Indeed, Subsection (a)(3) of Rule 37 provides that ‘an evasive or incomplete answer or response is to be treated as a failure to answer or respond.’” (Calandro v. Parkerson (1998) 333 Ark. 603…)
“[A] party objecting to discovery requests is allowed to seek protective relief pursuant to Rule 26(c), and [reviewing courts have] specifically noted that Rule 37(d) allows for a party's failure to respond to discovery to be excused where a protective order has been requested.” (Cooper Tire Rubber Co. v. Phillips Cty. Cir. Ct. (2011) 381 S.W.3d 67…)
“The goal of discovery is to permit a litigant to obtain whatever information he may need to prepare adequately for issues that may develop without imposing an onerous burden on his adversary.” (Heinrich v. Harp's Food Stores, Inc. (1996) 52 Ark. App. 165…)
“As a general rule, the purpose of seeking information from an adversary, or a witness, is two-fold: (1) To use it in the trial, or (2) to use it as a lead to information for use in the trial.” (See Di Pietruntonio v. Superior Court (1958) 84 Ariz. 291…)
The requirement of relevancy at the discovery stage is more loosely construed than that required at trial. For discovery purposes, the information sought need only be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (See Brown v. Superior Court (1983) 137 Ariz. 327…)
“Rule 65 plainly says [i]f a person fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, or fails to comply with a disclosure or discovery rule, the court may enter sanctions . . ." (See Williams v. Williams, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0225 FC…)
“The scope of permissible discovery is broad and a court is vested with broad discretion in addressing discovery.” (See Daniel J. McAuliffe & Shirley J. McAuliffe, Arizona Civil Rules Handbook at 372…)
“Just as Arizona authorities have granted expansive scope for expert cross-examination, so have they granted expansive scope for pretrial discovery from expert witnesses.” (See Emergency Care Dyn. v. Superior Court (1997) 188 Ariz. 32 …)
The moving party must state “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) “The motion shall be accompanied by…”
“Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45–day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate…”
A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under the Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.230 is unwarranted or…
The Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290 states, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply…”
The demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance if the responding party “fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance....”
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action... fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may…”
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under § 2025.230 . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document…”
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280…)
It is well settled that “the purposes behind the discovery rules are to eliminate surprise at trial, discover relevant evidence, simplify the issues, and promote expeditious settlement of cases without the necessity of going to trial.” (See Cameron v. Dist. Ct. (1977) 193 Colo. 286…)
“A motion to compel discovery is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will be upheld on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (See Gagnon v. District Court (1981) 632 P.2d 567; Rosenberg v. Grady (1992) 843 P.2d 25…)
“Under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) and as relevant here, a party shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties (1) the name and information of each individual with discoverable information and (2) all documents not privileged or protected that are relevant to disputed facts.” (See Camp Bird Colo. v. Bd. of Cty Com'rs (2009) 215 P.3d 1277“Under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) and as relevant here, a party shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties (1) the name and information of each individual with discoverable information and (2) all documents not privileged or protected that are relevant to disputed facts.” (See Camp Bird Colo. v. Bd. of Cty Com'rs (2009) 215 P.3d 1277…)
It is well settled that “C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) requires that parties disclose certain information about their expert witnesses, including the compensation the witness is receiving and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years.” (See Donelson v. Fritz (2002) 70 P.3d 539…) (continue reading)
“Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26 (b), and the answers may be used to the same extent as provided in Rule 26 (d) for the use of the deposition of a party." (See Ridley v. Young (1953) 127 Colo. 46…)
Practice Book Sections 13-14 provide in relevant part: “(a) If any party has failed to appear and testify at a deposition duly noticed pursuant to this chapter, or has failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order made pursuant to…”
“Practice Book § 13-14(a) provides in relevant part that a trial court ‘may, on motion [to compel production], make such order as…”
Practice Book 231 provides: “If any party has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer them fairly ... or has failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order ... the court may, on motion, make such order as…”
“[The Connecticut] Supreme Court has ‘long recognized that the granting or denial of a discovery request rests in the sound discretion of the [trial] court, and is subject to reversal only if…”
Section 13-4 (4)'s provision “is reasonably clear and plainly requires a plaintiff to disclose: (1) the name of the expert witness; (2) the subject matter…”
“Rule 37(a)(4) provides that, if a motion to compel is granted, ‘the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party ... to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the Court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified....’” (Habib v. Thurston (1985) 517 A.2d 1…)
“Thus, Rule 26(b)(4) ‘focuses not on the status of the witness, but rather on the substance of the testimony.’” (Gubbins, id., citing Patel v. Gayes (1993) 984 F.2d 214…)
“Rule 26(i) requires that ‘before filing any motion relating to discovery ... the affected parties or counsel must meet for a reasonable period of time in an effort to resolve the disputed matter.’” (Mizrahi v. Schwarzmann (1999) 741 A.2d 399…)
“Super.Ct.Civ.R. 26(b)(1) provides that ‘[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter of the action.’” (Futrell v. Department of Labor Federal Credit Union (2003) 816 A.2d 793, 808-09 quoting Roberts-Douglas v. Meares (1992) 624 A.2d 405…)
“Pursuant to Super.Ct.Civ.R. 37(a)(2), ‘the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer’ in the event ‘a party fails to answer an interrogatory [submitted under Rule 33].” (Futrell v. Department of Labor Federal Credit Union, 816 A.2d 793, 809 [D.C. 2003] citing Haynes v. District of Columbia, 503 A.2d 1219…)
“A party may seek a motion to compel discovery, when, after making a request for inspection under Rule 34 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, the opposing party fails to permit inspection as requested. The Court has discretion to order the disclosure of information in the interests of justice based on the facts and circumstances of the case.” (See CNH Industrial Am. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., C.A. No. N12C-07-108 EMD CCLD, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 19, 2015).)
“Pursuant to Rule 26, the expert disclosure statements should identify the expert's opinions and the basis for those opinions so that the opposing party can properly prepare for depositions and trial.” (See Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services (2006) 913 A.2d 519…)
“So far as interrogatories require the production of information, parties must disclose whatever information they have as of the time of the demand by the interrogatories.” (See Itron, Inc. v. Consert Inc. (2015) 109 A.3d 583…)
It is well settled that “Rule 26(b) provides that a deponent, upon oral deposition, may be examined regarding any matter ‘not privileged.’ Rule 33 provides that Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26(b).” (See Mumford and Davis v. Croft (1952) 47 Del. 464,…)
It is well settled that pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3), “a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under paragraph (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including his attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” (See Zirn v. VLI Corp. (1993) 621 A.2d 773 …)
Under Rule 1.280 subdivision (d)(2), the court, in addressing a motion pertaining to discovery of ESI, must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that the information sought is…
As required by Rule 1.380(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to compel discovery must include a statement confirming for the court that requesting counsel certifies that s/he has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with opposing counsel in an effort to…
Under Fla.R.Civ.P 1.380(a)(2) the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation or an order compelling inspection, or an order compelling an examination...
“Under OCGA § 9-11-37 (a) (2), a party may move to compel discovery responses to a document request under OCGA § 9-11-34. The requirements for production of documents under OCGA § 9-11-34 apply to nonparties as well as parties to the litigation.” (See OCGA § 9-11-34 (c); see also Sechler Family Partnership v. Prime Group (2002) 255 Ga.App. 854…”
“Rule 6.4 refers to a motion to compel discovery; the requirement for a conference to attempt to resolve the issues raised applies more directly to the situation in which the parties disagree over what is required by the discovery request or, for example, whether certain matters requested by discovery are privileged than to the total failure to respond to discovery.” (Fisher v. Bd. of Commissioners (1991) 200 Ga. App. 353…)
“Therefore, a mere technical failure to comply with an order compelling discovery, or an inadequate discovery response after entry of such an order, does not justify the extreme sanction of default or dismissal of the complaint.” (Kemp v. Rouse-Atlanta (1993) 207 Ga. App. 876…)
Note, that “Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.4 (B) does not require the moving party seeking to compel discovery to confer with counsel for the opposing party prior to filing a motion to compel where no discovery responses have been filed.” (Green v. Snellings (1991) 260 Ga. 751…)
“A party may, through interrogatories, require any other party to identify [its] expert witnesses ... to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.” (Candler General Hospital v. Joiner (1986) 180 Ga. App. 455…)
It is also well settled that “a trial court possesses authority to sanction parties for failure to comply with discovery orders or pretrial orders and for failure to seasonably supplement responses to discovery. Permissible sanctions include dismissal of the action.” (See Adams v. Reed (2002) 138 Idaho 36, 39; I.R.C.P. 16(i), 26(e)(4), and 37(b).)
Rule 37 provides that a party may move for an order compelling an answer if, inter alia ,a deponent fails to answer a question asked under Rules 30 or 31.” (See I.R.C.P. 37(a)(2) (2015); Wechsler v. Wechsler (2017) 162 Idaho 900…)
It is well settled that “the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure permit broad discovery of matters relevant to any party's claim or defense, so long as it is not privileged. If privileged, the matter is protected from discovery. The burden of showing that information is privileged falls on the party asserting the privilege.” (See I.R.C.P. 26(b)(1); Bradbury v. City of Lewiston, No. 49667, at *10 (Idaho July 10, 2023).)
“The principal purpose of interrogatories provided for under IRCP, Rule 33, is to afford parties information regarding facts involved in the issues in suit to enable the proposing party to prepare for trial and to reduce the possibility of surprise in the trial.” (See Smith v. Big Lost River Irrigation District (1961) 83 Idaho 374 …)
It is well settled that “Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(B) requires that litigants supplement discovery responses as to the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the person is expected to testify, and the substance of the person's testimony." (See Edmunds v. Kraner (2006) 142 Idaho 867…)
“In order to insure fair and equitable preparation for trial by all parties the identity of an expert who is retained to render an opinion at trial on behalf of a party must be disclosed by that party either within 90 days after the substance of the expert's opinion first becomes known to that party or his counsel or, if the substance of the expert's opinion is then known, at the first pretrial conference in the case, whichever is later.” (See, Baird v. Adeli (1991) 214 Ill. App. 3d 47, 59 quoting Rule 220.)
“Rule 201(b)(1) is founded on the basic premise that the object of discovery is the expeditious and final determination of controversies in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties.” (Zagorski, id., citing Owen v. Mann (1985) 105 Ill.2d 525…)
“The right of any party to a discovery deposition is basic and fundamental in today's adversary system, and, accordingly, the right of one party imposes a duty on the other party. That duty cannot be avoided by technical maneuvers or other conduct which results in destroying the purpose of modern discovery principles.” (Slatten v. City of Chicago (1973) 12 Ill. App. 3d 808…)
“Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) (eff. July 1, 2014) states that, ‘[e]xcept as provided in these rules, a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.’” (Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2022 Ill. App. 5th 210254 [Ill. App. Ct. 2022] quoting Rule 201(b)(1).)
“When disagreements arise, the trial court is authorized to enter discovery orders after considering numerous factors, such as the quantity of the requested information, the resources of the parties, and the importance of the discovery.” (Custer, 2019 IL App (5th) 190285, ¶ 32, 434 Ill.Dec. 583, 136 N.E.3d 1108.) “Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 addresses the consequences of refusal to comply with discovery orders and provides for a variety of sanctions, including awarding reasonable attorney fees and costs.” (Grant v. Rancour (2020) 441 Ill. Dec. 726, 737 citing Ill. S. Ct. R. 219(c) [eff. July 1, 2002].)
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 …)
“Pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 34(A)(1), [a]ny party may serve on any other party a request ... to produce and permit the party making the request ... to inspect and copy[ ] any designated documents or electronically stored information ... which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.” (See Hampton v. State (2015) 41 N.E.3d 306.)
“Indiana Trial Rule 26 provides that parties may obtain discovery by means of written interrogatory regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject-matter involved in the pending action including the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." (See Outback Steakhouse of Florida v. Markley (2006) 856 N.E.2d 65…)
“Trial Rule 26(E) further requires a party seasonably to supplement his response with regard to the substance of an expert witness' expected testimony.” (See T.R. 26(E)(1)(b); Shoaff v. Dekker (2014) 20 N.E.3d 222.)
It is well settled that “Trial Rule 30 reads that after commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination.” (See Matter of Estate of Niemiec (1982) 435 N.E.2d 570 …)
Unless otherwise specified, further answers to interrogatories shall be filed within 30 days of the entry of the order to answer further. The interrogating party may move for an order under Rule 37(a) with respect to…
Massachusetts rules of civil procedure “require a party to respond to expert witness interrogatories by disclosing the identity of each expected expert witness as well as…
“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…”
It is well settled that, pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 37(d), 365 Mass. 797 (1974), “when a party wilfully fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition, fails to answer interrogatories, or fails to serve a written response to a request for documents, a judge on motion ‘may make such orders in regard to…”
Rule 3:15 provides that “a party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, ‘for the purpose of discovery or for use as evidence or for both purposes.’ Subsection 1 (a). The deponent may be examined as to any subject matter relevant to…
“Documents and things which are not privileged and which are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action are freely discoverable upon request. MCR 2.301(B); MCR 2.310(A). The party submitting the request may move for an order compelling discovery with respect to an objection to or a failure to respond to a request for production. MCR 2.310(B); MCR 2.313(A). A trial court has considerable discretion in granting or denying a motion to produce.” (Davis v. O'Brien (1986) 152 Mich. App. 495…)
Indeed, “[u]nder MCR 2.309(B)(1), ‘[e]ach interrogatory must be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.’ Furthermore, a ‘party must include in its answers to interrogatories such information as is available to the party served or that the party could obtain from his or her employees, agents, representatives, sureties, or indemnitors.’” (Woody v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, No. 346182, at *4 [Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2020] citing Frankenmuth Mut Ins. Co. v. ACO, Inc. (1992) 193 Mich App 389…)
“MCR 2.302(B)(1) provides that parties may obtain relevant, nonprivileged information, even if such information is inadmissible at trial, provided that the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Harrison v. Olde Financial (1997) 225 Mich. App. 601…)
“A motion to compel discovery is a matter within the trial court's discretion, and the court's decision to grant or deny a discovery motion will be reversed only if there has been an abuse of that discretion.” (Linebaugh v. Sheraton Mich Corp. (1993) 198 Mich. App. 335…)
“Discovery may be obtained ‘by any means provided in subchapter 2.300’ of the court rules. Any person may be deposed pursuant to MCR 2.306(A)(1). (Truel v. City of Dearborn, 291 Mich. App. 125, 130-31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) [holding that “because defendants have disputed the denial of their subpoena requesting the withheld information, a motion to compel was an appropriate means by which to seek its production.”]; citing also, MCR 2.302(A)(1); MCR 2.306(B)(1) and (3); MCR 2.305(B)(2); MCR 2.305(B)(3).)
“Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(a) provides that [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party." (See Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety (2007) 735 N.W.2d 706…)
“A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See Matter of Parkway Manor Healthcare Ctr. (1990) 448 N.W.2d 116…)
“Rule 26.02(a) further provides that the information sought need not be admissible at trial so long as the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (See Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety (2007) 735 N.W.2d 706…)
“Interrogatories may be served after a deposition has been taken, and a deposition may be sought after interrogatories have been answered, but the court, on motion of the witnesses or the party interrogated, may make such protective order as justice may require.” (See Boldt v. Sanders (1961) 261 Minn. 160…)
“Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(a) provides that [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to a claim or defense of any party." (See Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safety (2007) 735 N.W.2d 706…)
“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…)
“Rule 56.01(b) governs the scope of discovery. Pursuant to that rule, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See Humane Society of Missouri v. Beetem (2010) 317 S.W.3d 669…)
“In order for an expert witness to be qualified, it must appear that because of education or specialized experience the person possesses superior knowledge respecting a subject about which persons having no particular training are not able to form an accurate opinion or draw correct conclusions.” (See Citizens Bank of Appleton v. Schapeler (1994) 869 S.W.2d 120…)
“Rule 61.01(b) and (d) allows the trial court, upon motion and reasonable notice, to enter sanctions against a party for failure to timely answer interrogatories and/or produce documents.” (See Cosby v. Cosby (2006) 202 S.W.3d 717…)
“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…)
“Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 26 (b), and the answers may be used to the same extent as provided in Rule 26 (d) for the use of the deposition of a party.” (See Hammer v. Allison (1974) 20 N.C. App. 623…)
“Rule 30 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure states: a party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give notice in writing to every other party to the action.” (See Mace v. Utley (2020) 853 S.E.2d 210…)
“When an opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests, the discovering party may apply for an order compelling discovery, pursuant to the guidelines and procedures outlined in Rule 37.” (See Estate of Johnson v. Johnsonów (2016) 796 S.E.2d 799.)
It is also well settled that “Rule 37 grants the trial judge discretion to impose sanctions upon a party for failure to comply with discovery processes.” (See Gardner v. Harriss (1996) 122 N.C. App. 697…)
“Rule 26(b)(4)(a)(1) mandates the disclosure of any experts prior to trial.” (See Stowe v. Stowe (2020) 846 S.E.2d 511…)
“In order for rule 26(b)(4)(B) to apply the information sought [must have been] obtained for the very purpose of preparing for the litigation in question.” (See Polum v. North Dakota Dist. Court (1990) 450 N.W.2d 761…)
“Rule 26(b)(1), N.D.R.Civ.P., provides: for good cause, the court may order the discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” (See Johnson v. Mark (2013) 834 N.W.2d 291…)
“Rule 37(a)(1) requires certification that the parties have conferred or attempted to confer regarding the asserted failure to respond to discovery requests before the initiation of a motion to compel.” (See Riemers v. Hill (2016) 881 N.W.2d 624…)
“Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by Rule 4:20-2 [orders for the protection of parties and deponents] or 4:20-4 [motion to terminate or limit examination], the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged…”
“[A] party may obtain discovery of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things otherwise discoverable under R[ule] 4:10-2(a) and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another…”
“Furthermore, there must be a substantial showing that [the discovery sought] contain[s] evidence relevant and material to the issue. If the specification is so broad and indefinite as to be oppressive and in excess of the defendant's necessities, then the Motion should be…”
Interrogatories are authorized by Rule 3:33, which provides: “any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a…”
Motions to compel discovery are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (See, Villanueva v. Sunday School Bd., 121 N.M. 98…)
Under Rule 1–034 NMRA, “a party may serve a request for production of documents to which the recipient is obligated to respond within thirty days.” (Little v. Baigas (2016) 390 P.3d 201…)
“Rule 1-026(B)(7)(a) requires that when a party withholds information that is otherwise discoverable, ‘the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.’” (Boulanger v. Rio Rancho Pub. Sch., No. A-1-CA-36953, at *4 [N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2021] citing Rule 1-026(B)(7)(a).)
Motions to compel discovery are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (See, Villanueva v. Sunday School Bd., 121 N.M. 98, 105 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) [holding that “the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Worker's motion to compel discovery.” see also, Kerman v. Swafford (1984) 101 N.M. 241…)
Rule 1–037(A)(2) NMRA provides the basis for a party's motion to compel discovery if interrogatories have not been answered. (See e.g., Little v. Baigas (2016) 390 P.3d 201…)
NRCP 37(a)(2)(A) requires a party moving to compel cooperation with discovery matters to certify that he or she has made an effort to obtain compliance without court action. (See, Scaife v. Reg'l Transp. Comm'n of S. Nev. (2012) 381 P.3d 659.)
“Significantly, though the word ‘request’ may be found in NRCP 37(a), it is used only in the context of a discovery request. (Okada, supra, id., citing, e.g ., NRCP 37(a)(2)(B) [setting forth procedure for when a party fails to respond to a ‘request for inspection’ or fails to ‘permit inspection as requested’]; NRCP 37(a)(4) [setting forth sanctions where the ‘requested discovery is provided after the motion [to compel] was filed’].)
“NRCP 26(a) permits discovery of information in a variety of methods including ‘depositions upon oral examination.’ Such depositions are governed by NRCP 30, which allows a party to depose ‘any person’ by oral examination.” (Club Vista Fin. Servs., L.L.C. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of the State (2012) 276 P.3d 246…)
“Under NRCP 37(d), sanctions may be granted only when a party fails ‘to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33....’” (Havas v. Bank of Nevada (1980) 96 Nev. 567, 571 n.4.)
In addition to a written report, “NRCP 26(e) requires a party to supplement expert disclosures within the time limits required by NRCP 16.1(a)(3) (providing that pretrial disclosures are due at least 30 days before trial).” (Riga v. McNabb, No. 80856-COA, at *8 [Nev. App. May 25, 2021].)
Motions to compel disclosure are generally granted where a party has unreasonably refused to comply. (Fugazy v. Time, Inc. 24 A.D.2d 443 [1965]; Mihaly v. Mahoney, 126 A.D.2d 791 [3rd Dept. 1987].) However, “litigants are not without protection against unnecessarily onerous application of the...”
If a person fails to respond to a deposition request, “the party seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3124.)
Concerning the answers to interrogatories not given based on privilege, “[w]hen a trial court is presented with a situation in which a party attempts to prevent the introduction of certain evidence by asserting the privilege defined in R.C. 2305.251, it is incumbent upon the trial court to hold an in camera…”
“The Supreme Court of Ohio has specifically found that it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion to compel the deposition of a nonparty when such nonparty is not subpoenaed…”
“Civ.R. 37 allows a party whose discovery requests have not been answered to file a motion to compel discovery responses but provides that such a motion may be made only after the movant has made a good-faith effort to…”
“Civ.R. 37 allows a party whose discovery requests have not been answered to file a motion to compel discovery responses but provides that such a motion may be made only after the movant has made a good-faith effort to confer with…”
"In Jones v. Murphy (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 84, [the Ohio Supreme Court] recently addressed the question of whether the trial judge has discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to exclude expert testimony when the party calling such expert has failed to name him by supplementing…”
It is well settled that “discovery statutes requiring matters subject to discovery to be "relevant" mean those materials either (1) admissible as evidence or (2) which might lead to the disclosure of admissible evidence.” (See Stone v. Coleman (1976) 557 P.2d 904…)
“Discovery statutes requiring matters subject to discovery to be "relevant" mean those materials either (1) admissible as evidence or (2) which might lead to the disclosure of admissible evidence.” (See Stone v. Coleman (1976) 557 P.2d 904…)
“A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only upon motion . . . upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by any other means.” (See Heffron v. District Court of Oklahoma County (2003) 77 P.3d 1069…)
“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 YWCA of Oklahoma City v. Melson (1997) 944 P.2d 304…)
“Section 549 is authority for written interrogatories which simply means the asking of questions. The scope of the questions may relate to any matter which may be inquired into by deposition.” (See Warren v. Myers (1976) 554 P.2d 1171…)
It is well settled that “under Rule 26(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., the party or person from whom discovery is sought must establish 'good cause' for any restriction on the use of discovery documents.” (See Wilson v. Piper Aircraft (1980) 46 Or. App. 795…)
“ORCP 36 B provides that, unless otherwise limited by the court, a party may inquire regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery.” (See Premier Technology v. Oregon State Lottery (1995) 136 Or. App. 124…)
“A party [may] move to compel discovery if a party has failed to respond to a discovery request, or if there has been an evasive or incomplete answer.” (See Welch v. Washington County (1992) 842 P.2d 793 …)
Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion “Expert testimony is required if the issues are not within the knowledge of the ordinary lay juror.” (See Vandermay v. Clayton (1999) 328 Or. 646…)
“ORCP 36, which governs discovery, generally allows parties to inquire regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to any party's claims or defenses.” (See I. H. v. Ammi (2022) 370 Or. 406…)
Responses to a motion to compel further or complete responses to interrogatories may be based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4011, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: “No discovery, including discovery of electronically stored information, shall be permitted which: (a) is sought in bad faith; (b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party; (c) is beyond the scope of discovery as set forth in Rules 4003.1 through 4003.6[.]” (Pa.R.C.P. No. 4011; Madlyn & Leonard Abramson Ctr. for Jewish Life v. Novitsky, J-A13024-17 [Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2017].)
Under Rule 4003.5, “discovery requests related to non-party expert witnesses retained for trial preparation must be made in the form of interrogatories and submitted to the party, rather than to the expert.” (Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hosp. of the Sisters of Christian Charity (2014) 91 A.3d 680…)
Responses to a motion to compel depositions are often based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4011, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: “No discovery, including discovery of electronically stored information, shall be permitted which: (a) is sought in bad faith; (b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party; (c) is beyond the scope of discovery as set forth in Rules 4003.1 through 4003.6[.]” (Pa.R.C.P. No. 4011; Mezzacappa v. Borough of W. Easton, No. 290 C.D. 2017, at *6 n.5 [Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 18, 2018].)
Indeed, motions for orders to compel discovery are based on a party's alleged failure to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.1 titled Scope of Discovery Generally which states in relevant part that: (a) Subject to the provisions of Rules 4003.2 to 4003.5 inclusive and Rule 4011, a party 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.... [and] (b) 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. (PECO Energy Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. (2004) 852 A.2d 1230…)
“Discovery is appropriate to unearth facts necessary to prove a claim, not to conduct ‘a fishing expedition to determine whether a cause of action exists.’” (Fullman v. Kurtz, No. 988 C.D. 2012, at *8 [Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 7, 2013] citing Luckett v. Blaine (2004) 850 A.2d 811…)
“Pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 33(a) and 34(b), a party has forty days after service of the interrogatories to serve sworn answers and forty days after the service of a document request to provide a written response.” (See Ingram v. Davol, Inc., C.A. No. PC 07-4701, at *3 (R.I. Super. Feb. 14, 2011).)
“Rhode Island Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) (Rule 37(a)) allows a party—upon reasonable notice to other parties and persons affected—to apply for an order compelling discovery.” (See LePore v. A.O. Smith Corp., C.A. No. PC-2012-1469…)
“Rule 26(b)(4)(A) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides [a] party may require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial[.]” (See Blue Coast, Inc. v. Suarez Corp. Industries (2005) 870 A.2d 997…)
It is well settled that pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 37(a), “When a party or deponent refuses to answer a question, the proponent may apply to the court for an order compelling an answer. The standard used to determine whether costs or sanctions should be imposed on counsel-seeking-discovery requests is whether the request was substantially justified. Trial court may award attorney's fees unless the court finds that opposition was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (See Fremming v. Tansey (1993) 626 A.2d 219…)
“The philosophy underlying modern discovery is that prior to trial, all data relevant to the pending controversy should be disclosed unless the data is privileged. The rationale for such disclosure is that controversies should be decided on their merits rather than upon tactical strategies.” (See Cabral v. Arruda (1989) 556 A.2d 47…)
Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1 (d) covers the disposition of motion to compel and the awarding of expenses and states in relevant part: “If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require a party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay…”
Any party may at any reasonable time request a hearing on an objection or claim of privilege. (Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.4(a).)
A motion to compel should demonstrate that the non-compliant party's conduct and failure to produce documents prejudices the moving party's ability to prepare their case.
Special interrogatories are those which are written specifically for the case at-hand — they stand in contrast to “form” interrogatories, which are pre-written, pre-structured interrogatories…
To the extent the court sustains the objection or claim of privilege, the responding party has no further duty to respond to that request. To the extent the court overrules the objection or claim of privilege, the responding party must…
When moving the court to compel further responses to discovery under Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(a), (b), (c) the motion should include the following: facts concerning all prior requests, including dates propounded, responses received…
Where a party refuses to produce items in response to a relevant discovery requests, Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1 authorizes a court to enter orders compelling discovery. Courts are also authorized to award…
When moving the court to compel a deposition under Rule 199.2(b)(1), the motion should include the following: Title: (Ex: Defendant's or Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Opposing Party's Corporate Representative; Background Facts and Requests For Deposition, including statement of the case…
It is well settled that “Vermont Rule of Evidence 703 allows experts to present their opinions based upon information that may otherwise be inadmissible as long as the information is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject." (See In re LaBerge (2016) 152 A.3d 1165…)
Specifically, “V.R.C.P. 37(a) provides in part that [a] party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery.” (See Kingsbury v. Kingsbury (1979) 137 Vt. 448…)
It is well settled that “under Rule 32(a)(3)(E), deposition testimony may be used at trial for any purpose if the court finds that the witness . . . is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the deposition has been unable to procure the witness' attendance by process or other reasonable means.” (See Boehm v. Willis (2006) 910 A.2d 908…)
“V.R.C.P. 37 sets forth a procedure that a party seeking discovery must follow where responses to interrogatories and requests to produce are incomplete.” (See In re R.M., Juvenile (1988) 150 Vt. 59…)
“Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 37 sets forth a process for parties to follow to secure responses when requests to produce are incomplete.” (See V.R.C.P. 37(a)(2), (3) [directing that where party provides incomplete answer to request to produce, discovering party may move for order compelling production]; see also Town of Colchester v. Andres, SUPREME COURT No. 2018-219, at *2 (Vt. Nov. 21, 2018).) …)
“CR 26(i) requires counsel to meet and confer in an effort to resolve discovery disputes before submitting them to the court. The attorneys must meet and confer either in person or by telephone.” (See Rudolph v. Empirical Research Systems, Inc. (2001) 107 Wash.App. 861, 28 P.3d 813; Dalsing v. Pierce Cnty., Corp. (2015) 357 P.3d 80…)
“CR 33(b) authorizes interrogatories pertaining to any matters within the scope of discovery under CR 26(b).” (See Flygare-Cade v. Flygare (2008) 147 Wn. App. 1007.)
“A trial court does not consider a motion to compel until the moving party fulfills the meet-and-confer requirement and files a certification that the conference requirements were met.” (See Collins v. Olympic Interiors Inc., No. 54390-7-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2021).)
“A party may serve on another party a request to produce documents that constitute or contain matters within the scope of CR 26(b) and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the request is served.” (See Unimak America, LLC v. Turner (2010) 156 Wn. App. 1006.)
It is well settled that pursuant to CR 26(b) (4) (B) “a party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only as provided in Rule 35(b) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.” (See Crenna v. Ford Motor Co. (1975) 12 Wn. App. 824…)
“Admissibility of expert testimony is governed by WIS. STAT. 907.02, which permits expert testimony if the witness possesses scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge relevant to a specific question and the testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.” (See Estate of Hegarty v. Beauchaine (2006) 297 Wis. 2d 70…)
It is well settled that “a party may seek a protective order to limit access to pretrial discovery material if the party shows good cause.” (See State ex Rel. Mitsubishi v. Milwaukee County (2000) 233 Wis. 2d 1…)
“A motion for an order compelling discovery should be filed with the court and served on all the parties within a reasonable time after the moving party is served with the allegedly insufficient response to the discovery request or, if no response has been received, after the deadline for the response.” (See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. McClellan, No. 95-1569, at *1 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 1996).)
“The party seeking to discover information has only the burden to prove that it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Franzen v. Children's Hospital (1992) 169 Wis. 2d 366…)
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, including books, documents, or other tangible things.” (See Konle v. Page (1996) 205 Wis. 2d 389…)
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
