Motion to Compel Production of Documents in New Hampshire

What Is a Motion to Compel Production of Documents?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

“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 Production of Documents

Production of documents during discovery is governed under Rule 24 of the Superior Court of the State of New Hampshire.

“Any party may serve on any other party a request:

to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents or electronically stored information including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the respondent into reasonably usable form, or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any designated tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 21(b) and which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served; or
to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation thereon, within the scope of Rule 21(b).”

(See N.H. R. Super. Ct. 24(a).)

“The request shall set forth, either by individual item or by category, the items to be inspected, and describe each with reasonable particularity. The request shall specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts.” (See N.H. R. Super. Ct. 24(b)(1).)

“The party upon whom the request is served shall serve a written response within 30 days after the service of the request. A shorter or longer time may be directed by the court or, in the absence of such an order, agreed to in writing by the parties.” (See N.H. R. Super. Ct. 24(b)(2).)

“The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified and inspection permitted of the remaining parts.” (See id.)

“A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.” (See N.H. R. Super. Ct. 24(b)(3).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

“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 Production of Documents

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 Production of Documents in New Hampshire

Sort By

Delayne Richardson v David Magoon

Filed

May 13, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Hillsborough County

County

Hillsborough County, NH

Case #