Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in North Dakota

Background

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding nonprivileged matters that are relevant to a party’s claim.” (See W.C. v. J.H. (2019) 930 N.W.2d 181, 183.)

“A party may obtain discovery through deposition, interrogatories, documents, and requests for admission.” (See id.)

“A party, other than the administrative agency, must first show good cause before undertaking discovery proceedings, including interrogatories.” (See Froysland v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau (1988) 432 N.W.2d 883, 888-89.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A pretrial discovery order which denies a motion to compel answers to interrogatories is an interlocutory order and is not appealable pursuant to Section 28-27-02, N.D.C.C.” (See Spence v. North Dakota Dist. Court (1980) 292 N.W.2d 53, 59.)

“Such an order must be raised as an issue on a subsequent appeal from a judgment.” (See id.)

“To hold otherwise would destroy the concept of speedy administration of justice and trials would be subject to constant interruptions and delays in order that such rulings could be carried to the Supreme Court for review.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A district court has broad discretion regarding the scope of discovery in a civil proceeding, and its discovery decisions will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” (See McBeth v. Hehn (2015) 868 N.W.2d 551, 557.)

“A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision, or if it misapplies or misinterprets the law.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “N.D.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) authorizes discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and further provides [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See McBeth v. Hehn (2015) 868 N.W.2d 551, 557.)

It is also well settled that “under N.D.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), the court may limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or obtainable from other sources.” (See id.)