“The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility of surprise. But discovery, like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries.” (Wilson v. Saginaw Circuit Judge (1963) 370 Mich. 404, 410.)
Indeed, “[i]t is well settled that Michigan follows an open, broad discovery policy that permits liberal discovery of any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending case.” (Reed Dairy v. Consumers Power (1998) 227 Mich. App. 614, 616 citing MCR 2.302(B)(1); Domako v Rowe (1991) 438 Mich. 347, 353, 359; In re Hammond Estate (1996) 215 Mich. App. 379, 386.)
“In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the purpose of discovery is to simplify and clarify issues. Domako, supra, 360. Thus, the rules should be construed in an effort to facilitate trial preparation and to further the ends of justice.” (Id.; Eyde v Eyde (1988) 172 Mich. App. 49, 54.)
“Moreover, ‘[the discovery process] should promote the discovery of the facts and circumstances of a controversy, rather than aid in their concealment.’” (Domako, supra, 360.) “Indeed, restricting parties to formal methods of discovery would serve to complicate trial preparation, rather than aid in the search for truth.” (Id.; MCR 1.105 explicitly states that the ‘[court] rules are to be construed to secure the just, speedy, and economical determination of every action.’”)
“Discovery may be obtained ‘by any means provided in subchapter 2.300’ of the court rules. Any person may be deposed pursuant to MCR 2.306(A)(1). (Truel v. City of Dearborn, 291 Mich. App. 125, 130-31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) [holding that “because defendants have disputed the denial of their subpoena requesting the withheld information, a motion to compel was an appropriate means by which to seek its production.”]; citing also, MCR 2.302(A)(1); MCR 2.306(B)(1) and (3); MCR 2.305(B)(2); MCR 2.305(B)(3).)
Further, “the deponent may be subpoenaed to appear and may be directed to produce documents or other tangible things. A deposition notice and subpoena ‘may provide that the deposition is solely for producing documents ... for inspection and copying, and that the party does not intend to examine the deponent.’” (Id.)
“If the deponent objects, ‘the party serving the subpoena is not entitled to inspect and copy the materials without an order of the court in which the action is pending.’ The party serving the subpoena may, with notice to the deponent, move for an order compelling production of the designated materials.” (Id.)
“Evidence objected to at a deposition, on grounds other than privilege, shall be taken subject to the objection.” (Linebaugh v. Sheraton Mich Corp. (1993) 198 Mich. App. 335, 343-44 citing MCR 2.306(C)(4).) “When a relevancy objection is made at a deposition, the proper procedure is to note the objection on the record, and then take the deponent's answer subject to the objection.” (Id.)
“A motion to compel discovery is a matter within the trial court's discretion, and the court's decision to grant or deny a discovery motion will be reversed only if there has been an abuse of that discretion.” (Linebaugh v. Sheraton Mich Corp. (1993) 198 Mich. App. 335, 343 citing Williams v Logan (1990) 184 Mich. App. 472, 476.)
“[D]eposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of ‘fishing expedition’ serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponent's case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.” (Wilson v. Saginaw Circuit Judge (1963) 370 Mich. 404, 410.)
“MCR 2.313(A)(5)(a) states:
‘If the motion is granted, the court shall ... require the party or deponent, whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct, or both, to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees....’
The rule does not provide for reimbursement of costs associated with taking an unsatisfactory deposition or with taking a second deposition, merely the costs of obtaining an order to compel discovery.” (Merit Manufacturing & Die, Inc. v. ITT Higbie Manufacturing Co. (1994) 204 Mich. App. 16, 22 quoting MCR 2.313(A)(5)(a).)
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
