Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in Hawaii

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

“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.)

Discoverable Information under Rule 26

“Under HRCP Rule 26(b), a party may obtain discovery of any matter which is relevant and not privileged, subject to limitation by the trial court.” (See Acoba v. General Tire Inc. (1999) 92 Haw. 1, 11.)

Specifically the rule states that “parties 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, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” (See Hawaii Ventures v. Otaka (2007) 114 Haw. 438, 471-72.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

"A general limitation on the right of discovery is that the information sought must be relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See Hall v. Dep't of Land & Nat. Res., No. CAAP-17-0000382, at *8 (Haw. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2022); Lothspeich v. Sam Fong (1985) 6 Haw.App. 118, 122, 711 P.2d 1310, 1314.)

“Relevancy, within the area of discovery, has a broader meaning than in the field of evidence.” (See id.)

“Information can be discoverable as relevant if it is admissible at trial or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

“Such information may be obtained by deposition; however, depositions are properly taken only for the purpose of preparing for trial or obtaining evidence for use in a pending action.” (See id.)

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

“The extent to which discovery is permitted under Rule 26 is subject to considerable latitude and the discretion of the trial court.” (See The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Bautista, No. CAAP-17-0000621, at *9 (Haw. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023).)

"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 Discovery Responses

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). 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.)