Motion to Compel Depositions in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Depositions

“In Hawai'i, discovery rules reflect a basic philosophy that a party to a civil action should be entitled to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession of another person prior to trial, unless the information is privileged." (See In re Narayan (2017) 400 P.3d 544, 554; Hac v. Univ. of Haw. (2003) 102 Hawai'i 92, 100, 73 P.3d 46, 54.)

“The provisions pertaining to discovery in the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted to put an end to the sporting theory of justice, by which the result depends on the fortuitous availability of evidence or the skill and strategy of counsel.” (See Dicenzo v. Izawa (1986) 68 Haw. 528, 534-35.)

“Adequate discovery is necessary to provide claimants a fair opportunity to present their claims." (See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. (1991) 500 U.S. 20, 31, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26.)

“Our system of civil litigation cannot function if parties, in violation of court orders, suppress information called for upon discovery.” (See Matsuura v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. (2003) 102 Haw. 149, 165-66.)

"Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.” (See id.)

“To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession." (See id.)

“The way is now clear, consistent with recognized privileges, for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial." (See id.)

“The aim of these liberal discovery rules is to make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” (See id.)

“It is axiomatic that (d)iscovery by interrogatory requires candor in responding." (See id.)

As such, “the parties in a civil case are permitted to conduct discovery, to determine the essential facts of the case and the identities of possible witnesses, and to inspect relevant documents.” (See Meyers v. Meyers (2022) 517 P.3d 775, 782.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Compel Depositions

“Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 32(a)(1) provides that [a]ny deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose permitted by the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence.” (See Sniffin v. State of Hawai'i Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. CAAP-19-0000278, at *6 (Haw. Ct. App. June 30, 2023).)

“After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination.” (See Haw. R. Civ. P. 30.)

“A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action.” (See id.)

“The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs.” (See id.)

“If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced as set forth in the subpoena shall be attached to, or included in, the notice.” (See id.)

HRCP Rule 37(d) states, “if a party ... fails ... to appear before the officer who is to take the deposition, after being served with a proper notice ... the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just[.]” (See Laird v. Ho‘ola Lahui Hawai‘I (2015) 358 P.3d 761.)

“The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: . . . (B) that the witness resides on an island other than that of the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the State, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition.” (See Graybehl v. Cordula, Inc., 23126, at *1 (Haw. Ct. App. Sep. 30, 2003).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Depositions

"We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to compel discovery under an abuse of discretion standard.” (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2014) 341 P.3d 1200, 1212; Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (2003) 102 Hawai‘i 465, 484, 78 P.3d 1, 20.)

“Thus, the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion that results in substantial prejudice to a party.” (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2016) 366 P.3d 160, 167.)

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2014) 341 P.3d 1200, 1212; Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (2003) 102 Hawai‘i 465, 484, 78 P.3d 1, 20.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Depositions

It is well settled that “prior to trial every party to a civil action is entitled to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession of any person, unless the information is privileged.” (See Dicenzo v. Izawa (1986) 68 Haw. 528, 535.)

It is also well settled that “a party's failure to obey a court order to provide discovery is expressly subject to sanctions enumerated in HRCP Rule 37(b). The available sanctions under this rule include requiring the disobedient party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure [.]” (See HRCP Rule 37(b)(2); Aloha Unlimited, Inc. v. Coughlin (1995) 79 Hawai‘i 527, 534, 904 P.2d 541, 548; Valentine v. Wong (2012) 284 P.3d 223.)