Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in New Hampshire

What Is a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Discovery

“Discovery in civil actions has been regarded in this jurisdiction as a proper procedural aid for the parties to prepare their case in advance of trial and has been given a broad and liberal interpretation.” (See McDuffey v. Boston Maine R.R (1959) 102 N.H. 179, 181.)

“Our liberal discovery rules came about in recognition of the concept that the ends of justice are best served by a system which gives both parties the maximum amount of information available, thus reducing the possibility of surprise at trial.” (See State v. Quintero (2011) 162 N.H. 526, 536.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action…” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 3.21; Desclos v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center (2006) 153 N.H. 607, 611.)

“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 scope of discovery is generally limited to relevant material that is not privileged.” (See Willett v. General Elec. Co. (1973) 113 N.H. 358, 359.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

The rules for motions to compel discovery are outlined in Rule 3.29 of the New Hampshire Rules of the Circuit Court of the State –District Division.

Pursuant to the rule, “before any Motion to Compel discovery may be filed, counsel for the parties shall attempt in good faith to settle the dispute by agreement.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 3.29(e).)

“If a Motion to Compel regarding requested discovery is filed, the moving party shall be deemed to have certified to the court that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain concurrence in the relief sought.” (See id.)

“Where a discovery dispute has been resolved by court order in favor of the party requesting discovery by court order, the requested discovery shall be provided within 10 days thereafter or within such time as the court may direct.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 3.29(f).)

“If, after service of a subpoena, a deponent refuses to answer a deposition question or provide requested materials, the party seeking discovery may, after providing notice to all persons affected, request that the court compel an answer or production.” (See In re N.H. Div. of State Police (2021) 261 A.3d 283, 289; Super. Ct. R. 26(k); see also Super. Ct. R. 29(e) [governing motions to compel.].)

“If the motion is granted, and if the court finds that the refusal was without substantial justification or was frivolous or unreasonable, the court may, and ordinarily will, require the deponent or the party, attorney, or non-attorney representative advising the refusal, or both of them, to pay the examining or requesting party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including reasonable counsel fees.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Dist. Div. 3.26(k).)

“If the motion is denied and if the court finds that the motion was made without substantial justification or was frivolous or unreasonable, the court may, and ordinarily will, require the examining party or the attorney advising the motion, or both of them, to pay to the witness the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including reasonable counsel fees.” (See id.)

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

“We review a trial court's rulings on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard." (See N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson (2009) 158 N.H. 421, 429, 969 A.2d 351; Vention Med. Advanced Components, Inc. v. Pappas (2018) 171 N.H. 13, 24.)

“We will not reverse the trial court's ruling unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion." (See Bronson v. The Hitchcock Clinic (1996) 140 N.H. 798, 809, 677 A.2d 665, 672; YYY Corp. v. Gazda (2000) 145 N.H. 53, 59.)

“To show that the trial court's decision was not sustainable, the appealing party must show that the ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.” (See Milliken v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic (2006) 154 N.H. 662, 665, 914 A.2d 1226; Laramie v. Stone (2010) 160 N.H. 419, 425.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

It is well settled that “to facilitate third-party discovery under New Hampshire law, a party may serve a nonparty with a subpoena to provide deposition testimony and with a subpoena duces tecum to require production of certain documents or other materials at the deposition.” (See In re N.H. Div. of State Police (2021) 261 A.3d 283, 288.)

It is also well settled that "a trial court has the inherent authority to sanction discovery abuses by awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs, or by imposing any other appropriate sanction.” (See N.H. Ball Bearings v. Jackson (2009) 158 N.H. 421, 437.)

Dockets for Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in New Hampshire

Sort By

Delayne Richardson v David Magoon

Filed

May 13, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Hillsborough County

County

Hillsborough County, NH

Case #