Motion for Protective Order in New Hampshire

What Is a Motion for Protective Order?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Protective Order

“Discovery in civil actions has been regarded in this jurisdiction as a proper procedural aid for the parties to prepare their case in advance of trial and has been given a broad and liberal interpretation.” (See McDuffey v. Boston Maine R.R (1959) 102 N.H. 179, 181.)

“Our liberal discovery rules came about in recognition of the concept that the ends of justice are best served by a system which gives both parties the maximum amount of information available, thus reducing the possibility of surprise at trial.” (See State v. Quintero (2011) 162 N.H. 526, 536.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action…” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 3.21; Desclos v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center (2006) 153 N.H. 607, 611.)

“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 scope of discovery is generally limited to relevant material that is not privileged.” (See Willett v. General Elec. Co. (1973) 113 N.H. 358, 359.)

“A party's request for information must appear relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson (2009) 158 N.H. 421, 429-30.)

“The trial court, therefore, is permitted to keep discovery within reasonable limits and avoid open-ended fishing expeditions or harassment to ensure that discovery contributes to the orderly dispatch of judicial business.” (See Robbins v. Kalwall Corp. (1980) 120 N.H. 451, 453, 417 A.2d 4.)

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (See MacPherson v. Weiner (2008) 158 N.H. 6, 9.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Protective Order

Protective orders are governed under Rule 35 of the New Hampshire Circuit Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

“Upon Motion by a Party or by the Person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the Court may make any order which justice requires to protect a Party or Person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

that the discovery not be had;
that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the Party seeking discovery;
that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;
that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the Court;
that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the Court;
that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;
that the Parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the Court.”

(See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 35(c).)

“If the Motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the Court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any Party or Person provide or permit discovery.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 35.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Protective Order

“Generally, we review trial court decisions regarding discovery management and related issues deferentially under our unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” (See In re State (2022) 174 N.H. 785, 789-90.)

“Thus, the trial court has discretion to extend a protective order.” (See MacPherson v. Weiner (2008) 158 N.H. 6, 11.)

“We will not reverse the trial court's ruling unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion." (See Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic (1996) 140 N.H. 798, 809, 677 A.2d 665, 672; YYY Corp. v. Gazda (2000) 145 N.H. 53, 59.)

“To show that the trial court's decision was not sustainable, the appealing party must show that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” (See Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic (2006) 154 N.H. 662, 665, 914 A.2d 1226; Laramie v. Stone (2010) 160 N.H. 419, 425.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Protective Order

It is well settled that when determining whether to issue a protective order, the court must “balance the potential harm to the free flow of information that might result against the asserted need for the requested information.” (See Mortgage Specialists v. Implode-Explode Heavy Indus (2010) 160 N.H. 227, 236.)

It is also well settled that a trial court has the “inherent authority to sanction discovery abuses by awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs, or by imposing any other appropriate sanction.” (See N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson (2009) 158 N.H. 421, 437.)

Dockets for Motion for Protective Order in New Hampshire

Sort By

Fritz Esperance v Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

Filed

May 08, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Hillsborough County

County

Hillsborough County, NH

Case #