Arkansas Discovery Process: Understanding Depositions, Motions, and Standards of Review

In Arkansas, motions to compel and standards of review play a crucial role in the discovery process. When a party fails to answer questions during a deposition or provide the required information, a motion to compel can be filed under Ark.R.Civ.P. 37. The court has broad discretion in matters related to discovery, and its decisions will only be reversed in cases of abuse of discretion. Understanding these legal aspects can help you navigate the complexities of litigation and protect your rights during the Arkansas discovery process.

Background

“Under Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(a), a party has an absolute right to take a deposition. If the deponent is asked questions that are inappropriate or unreasonable, he has a right to refuse to answer the question and request a protective order from the trial court to prevent the deposer from asking further questions along that line.” (Lupo v. Lineberger (1993) 313 Ark. 315, 319.)

Ark.R.Civ.P. Rule 37 covers failure to make discovery and motions for orders compelling discovery, including depositions. It provides in relevant part:

“A party, upon reasonable notice to all parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:

‘If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Rules 30 or 31, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a), or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested, or fails to permit inspection as requested, or if a party, in response to a request under Rule 35(c), fails to provide an appropriate medical authorization, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request.’”

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Form of the Motion

“The motion shall include a statement that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before he applies for an order.” (Ark.R.Civ.P. 37.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A circuit court has broad discretion in matters pertaining to discovery, and the exercise of that discretion will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion that is prejudicial to the appealing party.” (Williams v. Baptist Health (2020) 598 S.W.3d 487, 495 citing Hardy v. Hardy (2011) Ark. 82.) “This court has described abuse of discretion as a high threshold that requires not only error but also that the ruling was made improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.” (Williams, supra, id., citing Rhodes v. Kroger Co. (2019) Ark. 174.)

“[A reviewing court] will not reverse a circuit court's discovery ruling absent a showing that additional discovery would have changed the outcome of the case.” (Williams v. Baptist Health (2020) 598 S.W.3d 487, 496 citing Worden v. Kirchner (2013) Ark. 509, at 5.)

The Court’s Decision

“[I]n Harper v. Wheatley Implement Co., 278 Ark. 27, 643 S.W.2d 537 (1982), the appellants did not complete answers to interrogatories or to questions on deposition, and the appellees filed a motion to compel. Although the trial court did not issue an order compelling discovery, it struck the appellants' pleadings relating to certain claims on the day of trial. The supreme court held that, under Rule 37(d), the trial court had the authority to take that action.” (Coulson Oil Co. v. Tully (2003) 84 Ark. App. 241, 255.)

“The goal of discovery is to permit a litigant to obtain whatever information he may need to prepare adequately for issues that may develop without imposing an onerous burden on his adversary.” (Heinrich v. Harp's Food Stores, Inc. (1996) 52 Ark. App. 165, 169 [finding “[t]hat goal was not met in this case and appellant was denied a fair trial.”])