“The very purposes of discovery [is] to allow the parties to become fully informed about the essential nature of the case prior to trial.” (See Mintz v. Matalon (1987) 148 Vt. 442, 445.)
“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 Mattison v. Poulen (1976) 134 Vt. 158, 162.)
“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.” (See id.)
“The structure of Vermont's rule supports the view that in the context of interrogatories, Rule 26(b)(4)(A)(i) requires disclosure of only the specific matters listed therein, and is but one step in a multi-component discovery process available to litigants.” (See Stella v. Spaulding (2013) 67 A.3d 247, 257.)
“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, 63.)
“In such an instance, Rule 37(a) requires a motion for an order compelling discovery.” (See id.)
“Only if there had been a failure to comply with a specific discovery order would sanctions be appropriate.” (See id.)
“Trial courts have broad discretion with respect to discovery matters.” (See Ley v. Dall (1988) 150 Vt. 383, 386.)
“This Court will not disturb a trial court's discovery ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” (See Pcolar v. Casella Waste Sys., Inc. (2012) 59 A.3d 702, 707.)
“Thus, we will not disturb the court's determination unless its exercise of discretion was on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable, or the exercise of discretion was to a clearly unreasonable extent.” (See Meyer v. Meyer (2001) 173 Vt. 195, 197.)
It is well settled that “V.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) specifically permits the superior court to limit discovery if the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought.” (See Poplaski v. Lamphere (1989) 152 Vt. 251, 255.)
However, it is also well settled that “the purpose of liberal discovery rules is the prevention of surprise to one's opponents, and [we] have not hesitated to affirm the ultimate discovery sanction of exclusion when to do otherwise would frustrate this objective.” (See Smith v. Central Vermont Hospital, Inc. (2004) 177 Vt. 640, 644.)
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
