Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in Pennsylvania

What Is a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories?

Background

“The trial court is responsible for ‘[overseeing] discovery between the parties and therefore it is within that court's discretion to determine the appropriate measure necessary to insure adequate and prompt discovering of matters allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.’” (Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Invest (2007) 936 A.2d 1117, 1125 citing PECO Energy Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (2004) 852 A.2d 1230, 1233 quoting Hutchison v. Luddy (1992) 414 Pa.Super. 138.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Motions to compel further or complete responses to interrogatories may be based on the alleged violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.1(a) which provides, as follows:

“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, including the existence, description, nature, content, 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.”

(Pa.R.C.P. No. 4003.1(a); Madlyn & Leonard Abramson Ctr. for Jewish Life v. Novitsky, J-A13024-17 [Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2017].)

Response to Motion to Compel Further or Complete Responses to Interrogatories

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:

is sought in bad faith;
would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party;
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].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Discovery matters are within the discretion of the trial court and the appellate court employs an abuse of discretion standard of review.” (Luckett v. Blaine (2004) 850 A.2d 811, 818 citing Luszczynski v. Bradley (1999) 729 A.2d 83, 87. “Because challenges to discovery orders do not raise factual questions but, rather, legal questions, [the Court of Appeals] scope of review is plenary.” (Luckett, id., citing In re Hasay (1996) 546 Pa. 481, 486.)

Moreover, “[w]here the discretion exercised by the trial court is challenged on appeal, the party bringing the challenge bears a heavy burden.” (Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 2006 Pa. Super. 52, 61 [Pa. Super. Ct. 2006] citing Paden v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc. (1995) 540 Pa. 409, 412.)

Discovery Orders Not Immediately Appealable

“[M]ost discovery orders are deemed interlocutory and not immediately appealable because they do not dispose of the litigation.” (Veloric v. Doe (2015) 123 A.3d 781, 784.) Nevertheless, “[a]n appeal may be taken as of right from a collateral order of [a] ... lower court.” (Id., citing Pa.R.A.P. 313(a).)

“A collateral order is an order separable from and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.” (Ungurian v. Beyzman (2020) 232 A.3d 786, 794 n.10 citing Pa.R.A.P. 313(b).)

For example, “[i]n Berkeyheiser v. A-Plus Investigations, Inc., [936 A.2d 1117, 1123-24 (Pa. Super. 2007)], the Superior Court explained that ‘Pennsylvania courts have held that discovery orders involving potentially confidential and privileged materials are immediately appealable as collateral to the principal action.’” (Borough of Versailles v. Ingram's Cleaning Serv., No. 546 C.D. 2013, at *4-5 [Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 3, 2014] citing id.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

Within the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Courts may require compliance with local rules such as the following for Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure 208.2(e).

The local rule states, in relevant part:

“Any motion relating to discovery must include a certification by counsel for the moving party that counsel has conferred or attempted to confer with all interested parties in order to resolve the matter without court action. This certification language is included on the cover sheet of moving party required by Local Rule 208.3 (b). By checking the appropriate box on the cover sheet of the moving party, and signing the certification section of the cover sheet, counsel for the moving party will satisfy the certification requirement under this Rule.”

(Madlyn & Leonard Abramson Ctr. for Jewish Life v. Novitsky, J-A13024-17, at *14 [Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2017] citing Montgomery County Rule of Civil Procedure 208.2(e).)

The Court’s Decision

“‘As a general rule, [an Appellate] Court will not provide interim supervision of discovery proceedings conducted in connection with litigation pending in the several trial courts. In the absence of unusual circumstances, we will not review discovery or sanction orders prior to a final judgment in the main action.’” (Spivack v. Berks Ridge Corp. Inc. (1990) 402 Pa. Super. 73, 80 quoting McManus v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (1985) 342 Pa. Super. 405, 410.)

“In reviewing the appealability of the Discovery Order, [a Court of Appeals will] first focus [their] attention on whether the Discovery Order is separable from the main cause of action.” (Winig v. Braverman, 2039 EDA 2020, at *1 [Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Nov. 5, 2021] citing generally Pa.R.A.P. 313.) “An order is separable from the main cause of action if it can be resolved without an analysis of the merits of the underlying dispute.” (Commonwealth v. Williams (2014) 86 A.3d 771, 781.) “Because ‘some interrelatedness with the main issue is tolerable,’ ... a court must assess whether an issue ‘is conceptually distinct from the primary cause of action.” (Winig v. Braverman, 2039 EDA 2020, at *1 citing Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp. (2006) 905 A.2d 422, 433.)

Documents for Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in Pennsylvania

Sort By

Gibson v. Benchmark School document preview

Motion to Compel Discovery

53 pages

JENNA GIBSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY Plaintiff, Vv. BENCHMARK SCHOOL, a/k/a, d/b/a, t/a HILLTOP SCHOOL NO.: CV-23-007443 Defendant. ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses …