Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Rhode Island

Background

“The discovery process affords Rhode Island litigants the ability to obtain information regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See Super. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, PB 12-5616, at *1 (R.I. Super. July 7, 2014).)

“Within this process, Super. R. Civ. P. 34 requires that a party produce discoverable documents in its "possession, custody or control.” (See Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., C.A. Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, at *2-3 (R.I. Super. Feb. 10, 2011).)

“[I]f a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Rules 30 and 31 . . . the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling production or inspection in accordance with the request.” (See Hall v. Shiff, C.A. No. PC 08-2420, at *1 (R.I. Super. Feb. 17, 2015).)

“Furthermore, [i]f the motion is granted . . . the court may . . . require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees[.]” (See Rule 37(a)(4)(A); Hall v. Shiff, C.A. No. PC 08-2420, at *1 (R.I. Super. Feb. 17, 2015).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Our Supreme Court announce[d] a rule permitting limited jurisdictional fact discovery when pertinent facts bearing on the issue of jurisdiction are in question and the relevant information remains in the exclusive control of the defendant.” (See Bazor v. Abex Corp., C.A. No. PC 14-3741, at *1 (R.I. Super. July 16, 2015).)

“Our Supreme Court has given the concept of relevancy, as it applies to discovery purposes, a liberal application and the test to be applied is whether the material sought is relevant to the subject matter of the suit, not whether it is relevant to the precise issues presented by the pleadings, hence it is broader than the rule governing relevancy of evidence adduced at a trial.” (See Borland v. Dunn (1974) 113 R.I. 337, 341, 321 A.2d 96, 99; Hall v. Shiff, C.A. No. PC 08-2420, at *1 (R.I. Super. Feb. 17, 2015).)

“Pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 33(a) and 34(b), a party has forty days after service of the interrogatories to serve sworn answers and forty days after the service of a document request to provide a written response.” (See Ingram v. Davol, Inc., C.A. No. PC 07-4701, at *3 (R.I. Super. Feb. 14, 2011).)

“The rule further requires that the response shall include specific objections to the request along with the reasons therefor.” (See Corvese v. Medco Containment Services, Inc. (1997) 687 A.2d 880, 882.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A requesting party may move for an order compelling discovery if a party fails to respond to a request for production or inspection submitted under Super. R. Civ. P. 34. In granting or denying discovery orders, a justice of the Superior Court has broad discretion.” (See Corvese v. Medco Containment Servs. (1997) 687 A.2d 880, 881; Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., C.A. Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, at *3 (R.I. Super. Feb. 10, 2011).)

“The burden of demonstrating requisite materiality under Rule 34 rests on the party seeking production” (See Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., C.A. Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, at *3 (R.I. Super. Feb. 10, 2011).)

“The question for the Court in ruling on Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendants is not whether Plaintiff will be able to prove her case with the information she seeks through discovery, but whether such information is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See Lepore v. A.O. Smith Corp., C.A. No. PC-12-1469, at *1 (R.I. Super. May 23, 2014).)

“[W]hen a court sets a discovery deadline, any requests for discovery must be made in sufficient time to allow the opposing party the response time required by [the Federal Rules] before the termination of discovery. If discovery is not served within that time period, it is considered untimely.” (See Ingram v. Davol, Inc., C.A. No. PC 07-4701, at *3-4 (R.I. Super. Feb. 14, 2011).)

Meet and Confer

“R. Civ. P. Rule 37 provides that aggrieved parties, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery. (See Rule 37(a).) “The motion must include certification "that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery.” (See Rule 37(a)(2); Triton Realty v. Essex Mutual Ins. Co., PC No. 03-2061, at *1 (R.I. Super. Mar. 23, 2006).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that the Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) (Rule 33(a)) “provides that a party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories [and] [t]he party shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable. Likewise, Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)-(b) (Rule 34(a) and Rule 34(b), respectively) allows a party to serve on any other party a request . . . to produce . . . any designated documents and requires the answering party to state the reasons for any objection to a request for production." (See Lepore v. A.O. Smith Corp., C.A. No. PC-12-1469, at *1 (R.I. Super. May 23, 2014).)

It is also well settled that Super R. Civ. P. 26 “limits discovery if the Court determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative; (ii) . . . [or] (iii) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation." (See Brokaw v. Davol, Inc., C.A. Nos. PC 07-5058, PC 07-4048, PC 07-1706, at *5 (R.I. Super. Feb. 10, 2011).)