Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in Oregon

Background

“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, 797 n.5.)

“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, 411.)

“The information sought, however, must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

"For all forms of discovery, parties may inquire regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant 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 Poddar v. Department of Revenue (1999) 328 Or. 552, 561.)

“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.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Whatever discovery may be appropriate is a matter within the discretion of the court.” (See Willamette Landing Apartments - 89, LLC v. Burnett (2016) 280 Or. App. 703, 719.)

“We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion.” (See Doe v. Denny's, Inc. (1997) 146 Or. App. 59, 67.)

“Although our review of the court's decision is for abuse of discretion, the court's discretion must be exercised in accordance with, and our review must necessarily take into account, the applicable legal principles governing the right to discovery.” (See Baker v. English (1995) 134 Or. App. 43, 46.)

Meet and Confer

“The court will deny any motion made pursuant to ORCP 36 through 46, unless the moving party, before filing the motion, makes a good faith effort to confer with the other parties concerning the issues in dispute.” (See Nelson and Nelson (1992) 117 Or. App. 157, 160.)

“The moving party will file a certificate of compliance with the rule at some time prior to the time set for hearing on the motion. The certificate shall be sufficient if it states either that the parties conferred or contains facts showing good cause for not conferring." (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “on the motion of the party from whom discovery is sought, ORCP 36 C(1) permits the trial court to restrict or limit the terms and conditions of discovery, as justice requires[,] to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." (See I. H. v. Ammi (2022) 370 Or. 406, 412.)

It is also 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, 799.)