Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in Kansas

What Is a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

“A district court has the authority to focus discovery, prevent abusive discovery, and to insure confidentiality when necessary.” (See Purdum v. Purdum (2013) 48 Kan. App. 2d 938, 989.)

"The purpose of discovery is to eliminate the element of surprise from trials, simplify issues and procedures by full disclosure to all parties of anticipated evidence and factual and legal issues, and to consider such matters as may aid disposition of action." (See Poplin v. Poplin, No. 123, at *1 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2021); Ryan v. Kansas Power & Light Co. (1991) 249 Kan. 1, 11-12, 815 P.2d 528.)

“Thus, statutes and rules governing discovery and pretrial procedures are to be broadly construed to accomplish their intended objectives." (See id; Burkhart v. Philsco Products Co. (1987) 241 Kan. 562, 570, 738 P.2d 433.)

“Under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-226(b), which defines the scope of discovery, [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." (See Short v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc. (2019) 441 P.3d 1058, 1068-69.)

"[T]he scope of relevancy in a discovery proceeding is broader than the scope of relevancy at trial." (See id; Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty (2010) 291 Kan. 597, 620, 244 P.3d 642.)

“This is because [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (See Short v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc. (2019) 441 P.3d 1058, 1068-69; Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty (2010) 291 Kan. 597, 620, 244 P.3d 642.)

“Kansas law of civil procedure provides that parties may obtain discovery by depositions, interrogatories, production of documents or things and requests for admissions. The frequency of use of these methods is not limited.” (See K.S.A. 60-226(a); State ex Rel. Miller v. Richardson (1981) 229 Kan. 234, 237.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

Discovery rules regarding interrogatories are governed under Kansas Statutes, subsection 60-233.

“A party may serve written interrogatories on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of process on that party.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-233(a)(1).)

“An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-226, and amendments thereto. An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-233(a)(2).)

“The interrogatories must be answered: (A) By the party to whom they are directed; or (B) if that party is a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency or other entity, by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-233(b)(1).)

“The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories, except that a defendant may serve answers or objections within 45 days after being served with process. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under K.S.A. 60-229, and amendments thereto, or be ordered by the court.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-233(b)(2).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

"[A] trial court is vested with broad discretion in supervising the course and scope of discovery." (See Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC (2019) 56 Kan. App. 2d 1317, 1324; Miller v. Johnson (2012) 295 Kan. 636, 688, 289 P.3d 1098.)

"[O]rders concerning discovery will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion." (See Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC (2019) 56 Kan. App. 2d 1317, 1324; In re Tax Appeal of City of Wichita (2004) 277 Kan. 487, 513, 86 P.3d 513.)

“A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if:

no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court;
it is based on an error of law; or
it is based on an error of fact.”

(See Flaherty v. CNH Indus. Am., LLC (2019) 56 Kan. App. 2d 1317, 1324; Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co. (2015) 302 Kan. 66, 74, 350 P.3d 1071.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

It is well settled that “this court has often stated the scope of discovery is to be liberally construed so as to provide the parties with information essential to litigation in order to insure the parties a fair trial. The scope of relevancy in a discovery proceeding is broader than the scope of relevancy at trial. Relevancy includes information which may be useful in preparation for trial. A request for discovery would be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit.” (See Gleichenhaus v. Carlyle (1979) 226 Kan. 167, 170.)

It is also well settled that “the discovery rules were promulgated to expedite litigation, to safeguard against surprise, to prevent delay, and to expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial. Under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–237, the trial judge has the ability to sanction parties who fail to comply with the discovery rules. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling a disclosure from another party. The district court may then order the other party to comply with that discovery request. If that party fails to comply with the district court's discovery order, the court may issue sanctions on that party. The trial judge is empowered to impose such sanctions as are just under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–237(b)(2), which lists several possible sanctions that a court may impose on a disobedient party, including rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.” (See First Gen. Servs. of Kan. City, Inc. v. Nedrow (2013) 312 P.3d 398; Vickers v. City of Kansas City (1975) 216 Kan. 84, 90, 531 P.2d 113.)