“It would seem to us that, even though the discovery is not to be limited to facts which may be admissible as evidence, the ultimate goal is to ascertain facts or information which may be used for proof or defense of an action.” (See Sanders v. Ayrhart (1965) 89 Idaho 302, 309.)
“Such information may be discovered by leads from other discoverable information.” (See id.)
“The purpose of the discovery rules is to take the surprise out of trials of cases so that all relevant facts and information pertaining to the action may be ascertained in advance of trial.” (See id.)
Additionally, “the purpose of our discovery rules is to facilitate fair and expedient pretrial fact gathering.” (See Edmunds v. Kraner (2006) 142 Idaho 867, 873.)
“It follows, therefore, that discovery rules are not intended to encourage or reward those whose conduct is inconsistent with that purpose.” (See id.)
“The rules of civil procedure provide a variety of discovery tools, including pretrial depositions of witnesses.” (See I.R.C.P., Rules 26-37; Wolfe v. State (1990) 117 Idaho 645, 649.)
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery, 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 Kelly v. Kelly, No. 46748, at *18 (Idaho Sep. 10, 2019).)
“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 id.)
“The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended January 1, 1975, establish a procedure whereby parties themselves accomplish discovery with minimal court intervention; depositions are arranged by merely giving notice to deponents.” (See Frost v. Hofmeister (1976) 97 Idaho 757, 760-61.)
“Rule 26 allows an aggrieved deponent to seek protection from the court if he believes the deposition is in some way wrongful.” (See id.)
“Similarly, if a deponent refuses to appear for deposition, or improperly refuses to answer questions, the party seeking discovery may ask the court to intervene by requesting an order to compel discovery.” (See id.)
“If the court finds that the deponent refused without justification to answer a question, then it may issue the order to compel discovery.” (See id.)
“The rules provide penalties if the deponent again refuses after being ordered to answer by the court.” (See id.)
“The court participates in the discovery process only if the parties are unable to work together, but no sanction can be imposed until the court has become involved.” (See id.)
“Rule 37(a)(4) allows a party to recover the costs of obtaining an order to compel discovery.” (See id.)
“However, when no motion has been made for an order to compel discovery, no costs may be recovered.” (See id.)
“Rule 30, which addresses oral depositions, provides that a party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party stating the time and place of the deposition.” (See I.R.C.P. 30(b)(1) (2015); Wechsler v. Wechsler (2017) 162 Idaho 900, 909.)
“Similarly, a party seeking the production of documents must file with the court a notice of when and upon whom it was served.” (See I.R.C.P. 34(d) (2015); Wechsler v. Wechsler (2017) 162 Idaho 900, 909.)
“Rule 37 provides that a party may move for an order compelling an answer if, inter alia ,a deponent fails to answer a question asked under Rules 30 or 31.” (See I.R.C.P. 37(a)(2) (2015); Wechsler v. Wechsler (2017) 162 Idaho 900, 909.)
“An evasive or incomplete answer must be treated as a failure to answer.” (See I.R.C.P. 37 (a)(3) (2015); Wechsler v. Wechsler (2017) 162 Idaho 900, 909.)
“Rule 37 also requires a motion to compel to include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action." (See I.R.C.P. 37(a)(2) (2015); Wechsler v. Wechsler (2017) 162 Idaho 900, 909.)
“To be admissible the evidence must relate to and be confined to the matter in issue.” (See Williams v. Idaho Potato Starch Co. (1952) 73 Idaho 13, 245 P.2d 1045.)
“Evidence offered must meet the test of materiality and relevancy.” (See Mountain States Tel. Tel. Co. v. Jones (1955) 76 Idaho 241, 280 P.2d 1067.)
“The admissibility of evidence generally rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See Rangen, Inc. v. Valley Trout Farms, Inc. (1983) 104 Idaho 284, 289.)
“Absent clear abuse of that discretion, we will not overturn the trial court's decision.” (See Hopkins v. Troutner (2000) 134 Idaho 445, 447.)
“When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court, the sequence of inquiry is:
(See Weeks v. Eastern Idaho Health Serv. (2007) 143 Idaho 834, 837.)
It is well settled that "Rule 32(a)(2) permits the deposition of a party to be used by any adverse party for any purpose at the trial or hearing, even though the party is present at the trial and has testified orally. In that situation the deposition may be used as evidence of an admission and may be introduced as independent original evidence by the adverse party and not merely for purposes of impeachment." (See Blankenship v. Myers (1975) 97 Idaho 356, 362.)
It is also well settled that “a trial court possesses authority to sanction parties for failure to comply with discovery orders or pretrial orders and for failure to seasonably supplement responses to discovery. Permissible sanctions include dismissal of the action.” (See Adams v. Reed (2002) 138 Idaho 36, 39; I.R.C.P. 16(i), 26(e)(4), and 37(b).)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
