Motion for Discovery Sanctions in Virginia

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

“Discovery is the process by which facts resting within the knowledge of one party are disclosed to another party in a suit or proceeding in court.” (See Temple v. Mary Wash. Hosp., Inc. (2014) 762 S.E.2d 751, 754.)

“Rule 4:1(b)(1) states that with certain exceptions [p]arties 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." (See Nizan v. Wells Fargo Bank (2007) 274 Va. 481, 500.)

“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 Hall v. Hall, Record No. 2021-04-4, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2005).)

“One purpose of the discovery process is to disclose all relevant and material evidence before trial in order that the trial may be an effective method for arriving at the truth and not a battle of wits between counsel.” (See Little v. Cooke (2007) 274 Va. 697, 717; Moore v. Moore, Record No. 0314-20-4, at *21 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2020).)

“A sanction is a discretionary measure employed by a trial court to coerce a party to comply with a discovery order or to punish a party for abusing the judicial system.” (See Ange v. York/Poquoson Department of Social Services (2002) 37 Va. App. 615, 632.)

“Pretrial discovery rules require litigants to respond to discovery requests in a timely and forthcoming manner.” (See Mikhaylov v. Sales (2016) 784 S.E.2d 286, 290.)

As such, pursuant to Rule 4:12(b)(2), “a trial court may sanction a party for failing to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” (See Landrum v. Johnston-Willis Hospitals (2011) 282 Va. 346, 352.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

“Pursuant to Rule 4:12(b)(2), a trial court may sanction a party that fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” (See Galloway v. Cnty. of Northampton (2021) 855 S.E.2d 848, 851.)

“Rule 4:12(b) provides, if a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, . . . the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just[.]” (See Spaid v. Spaid, No. 0021-22-4, at *10 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2022).)

Specifically, the rule states that “a party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows… (2) Motion. If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Rule 4:5 or 4:6, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 4:5(b)(6) or 4:6(a), or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 4:8, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 4:9, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 4:12(a)(2).)

“A motion under subdivision (a) of this Rule must be accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” (See id.)

“If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion made pursuant to Rule 4:1(c).” (See id.)

“If the motion is granted, the court must, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (See Va. R. Sup. Ct. 4:12(a)(4).)

“If the motion is denied, the court must, after opportunity for hearing, require the moving party or the attorney advising the motion or both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney fees, unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” (See id.) “If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.” (See id.)

“In any event, Rule 4:12 gives the trial court broad discretion in determing what sanctions, if any, will be imposed upon a litigant who fails to respond timely to discovery." (See Woodbury v. Courtney (1990) 239 Va. 651, 654, 391 S.E.2d 293, 295; Rappold v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. (1993) 246 Va. 10, 14-15.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

“The Supreme Court has made clear that [a] trial court generally exercises broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an order relating to discovery.” (See Spaid v. Spaid, No. 0021-22-4, at *10 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2022).)

“This standard requires the Court to show enough deference to a primary decision maker's judgment that the [reviewing] court does not reverse merely because it would have come to a different result in the first instance.” (See Race v. Commonwealth, No. 0691-22-4, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022).)

“A trial court's decisions on such matters will generally not be reversed on appeal unless the action taken was improvident and affected substantial rights.” (See Temple v. Mary Wash. Hosp., Inc. (2014) 762 S.E.2d 751, 753.)

“A trial court commits an abuse of discretion when:

1. it fails to consider a relevant factor that should have been given significant weight;
2. it considers and gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor; or
3. it considers all proper factors, and no improper ones, but, in weighing those factors, the court commits a clear error in judgment.”

(See Barnes v. Commonwealth (2020) 72 Va.App. 160, 167; Race v. Commonwealth, No. 0691-22-4, at *4 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022).)

“The abuse of discretion standard recognizes that a court has a range of choice and that its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law." (See Galiotos v. Galiotos (2021) 300 Va. 1, 10, 858 S.E.2d 653; Payne v. Payne (2023) 77 Va. App. 570, 590.)

"Although we review a ruling on discovery for abuse of discretion, a lower court's interpretation of a statute or the rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia presents a question subject to de novo review on appeal." (See Patel v. Rabinowitz ex rel. Lakhani Assocs. (2022) 75 Va. App. 663, 669-70; Nimety v. Commonwealth (2016) 66 Va. App. 432, 437, 786 S.E.2d 835.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

It is well settled that “the plain language of Rule 4:1(b)(1) indicates, a party's request for discovery will not be denied so long as it is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. The rule thus establishes a broad scope for discovery requests, defining the relevancy of such requests by relation to the subject matter of the action, regardless of whether [they] relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party." (See Hall v. Hall, Record No. 2021-04-4, at *1 (Va. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2005); Lyle, Siegel, Croshaw Beale, P.C. v. Tidewater Capital Corp. (1995) 249 Va. 426, 438-39, 457 S.E.2d 28, 36.)

It is also well settled that “Rule 4:12 governs the imposition of sanctions for [f]ailure to [m]ake [d]iscovery. This rule permits circuit courts to strike a party's claims or defenses for failure to comply with a discovery order. Moreover, Rule 4:12(d) expressly authorizes the court to strike a party's claims or defenses for failure to timely serve answers to interrogatories. This rule gives the trial court broad discretion in determining what sanctions, if any, will be imposed upon a litigant who fails to respond timely to discovery." (See Woodbury v. Courtney (1990) 239 Va. 651, 654, 391 S.E.2d 293, 295; Jeff Coal, Inc. v. Phillips (1993) 16 Va. App. 271, 278.)