Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in Virginia

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“Motions to compel are generally utilized in a discovery context.” (See Reid v. Reid, Record No. 1862-16-1, at *7 n.3 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017).)

“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.)

A “motion to compel discovery is a party's request that the court force the party's opponent to respond to the party's discovery request as to answer interrogatories or produce documents.” (See Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2009); Reid v. Reid, Record No. 1862-16-1, at *7 n.3 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017).)

“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).)

“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.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

Rule 4:12 of the Virginia Court Rules deals with motions to compel discovery.

Under that rule, “a party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:

1. Appropriate Court. An application for an order to a party may be made to the court in which the action is pending, or, on matters relating to a deposition, to the court in the county or city where the deposition is to be taken. An application for an order to a deponent who is not a party must be made to the court in the county or city where the deposition is being taken.
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. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before he applies for an order. 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. 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).
3. Evasive or Incomplete Answer. For purposes of this subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.
4. Award of Expenses of Motion. 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. 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. 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 Va. R. Sup. Ct. 4:12(a).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“Appellate courts generally review a trial court's ruling on the grant or denial of discovery requests under an abuse of discretion standard." (See Patel v. Rabinowitz ex rel. Lakhani Assocs. (2022) 75 Va. App. 663, 669-70; Temple v. Mary Washington Hosp., Inc. (2014) 288 Va. 134, 139, 762 S.E.2d 751.)

“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 to Compel Discovery Responses

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 “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.)