Motion to Compel Depositions in Oregon

Background

“ORCP 36 B provides that, unless otherwise limited by the court, a party may inquire regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery.” (See Premier Technology v. Oregon State Lottery (1995) 136 Or. App. 124, 134.)

“At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof.” (See Hansen v. Abrasive Engineering and Manufacturing (1993) 317 Or. 378, 391.)

“The court has the authority to deny discovery, if justice requires, to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” (See Premier Technology v. Oregon State Lottery (1995) 136 Or. App. 124, 134.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“The criteria for what may be compelled under a subpoena duces tecum for a discovery deposition are the same as for other forms of discovery.” (See Vaughan v. Taylor (1986) 79 Or. App. 359, 364.)

“A party may inquire as to any non-privileged matter which is relevant to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party.” (See id.)

“That the material sought is inadmissible is not a ground for objection if its discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

“A request for discovery must often be couched in broad terms, because the significance of the material cannot always be determined until it has been inspected.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Whatever discovery may be appropriate is a matter within the discretion of the court.” (See Willamette Landing Apartments - 89, LLC v. Burnett (2016) 280 Or. App. 703, 719.)

“We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion.” (See Doe v. Denny's, Inc. (1997) 146 Or. App. 59, 67.)

“Although our review of the court's decision is for abuse of discretion, the court's discretion must be exercised in accordance with, and our review must necessarily take into account, the applicable legal principles governing the right to discovery.” (See Baker v. English (1995) 134 Or. App. 43, 46.)

Meet and Confer

“The court will deny any motion made pursuant to ORCP 36 through 46, unless the moving party, before filing the motion, makes a good faith effort to confer with the other parties concerning the issues in dispute.” (See Nelson and Nelson (1992) 117 Or. App. 157, 160.)

“The moving party will file a certificate of compliance with the rule at some time prior to the time set for hearing on the motion. The certificate shall be sufficient if it states either that the parties conferred or contains facts showing good cause for not conferring." (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing.” (See Hansen v. Abrasive Engineering and Manufacturing (1993) 317 Or. 378, 391.)

It is also well settled that “ORS 45.250 (1)(b) provides that the deposition of an adverse party may be used by the other party for any purpose, including substantive admissions. ORS 45.260 provides that when one party offers in evidence part of such a deposition, the other party may then offer in evidence other parts of the deposition so far as admissible under the rules of evidence.” (See Yundt v. D & D Bowl, Inc. (1971) 259 Or. 247, 259.)