Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in Wisconsin

What Is a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses?

Background

“In general, a party is entitled to discovery of all nonprivileged information relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” (See Security Bank v. Willett, No. 2010AP2750, at *5 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2011).)

“The party seeking to discover information has only the burden to prove that it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Franzen v. Children's Hospital (1992) 169 Wis. 2d 366, 389 n.41.)

“Thus, the admissibility of the material requested or the information to which the requested material will lead is relevant to the determination of whether it is discoverable.” (See Earl v. Gulf Western Mfg. Co. (1985) 123 Wis. 2d 200, 205.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Any party may serve on any other party a request (a) to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the party's behalf, to inspect and copy, any designated documents.” (See Borgwardt v. Redlin (1995) 196 Wis. 2d 342, 356.)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, including books, documents, or other tangible things.” (See Konle v. Page (1996) 205 Wis. 2d 389, 393.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A decision to grant or deny a motion to compel discovery is within the trial court's discretion.” (See Thomson v. United Water Ser. Milwaukee (2001) 638 N.W.2d 393.)

“A trial court's discretionary decision will be upheld on review when the trial court applies the relevant law to facts of record using a process of logical reasoning.” (See Liturgical Publication, Inc. v. Karides (2006) 715 N.W.2d 240.)

Additionally, “the trial court's rulings will be upheld on appeal if they are consistent with the facts of record and established legal principles.” (See Burnett v. Alt (1997) 215 Wis. 2d 204, 216.)

“We will not reverse unless a misuse of discretion is clearly shown.” (See Burnett v. Alt (1997) 215 Wis. 2d 204, 216.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “while we agree that a party's obligation to comply with discovery is not dependent on whether the court issues an order compelling discovery, we nonetheless conclude that a single failure to respond to interrogatories is distinguishable from the repeated refusals to comply with discovery, including court orders compelling discovery.” (See Rivera v. Perez (2010) 327 Wis. 2d 467, 489 n.16.)

It is also well settled that “if a discovering party receives an answer to an interrogatory that it believes is evasive or incomplete, or fails to receive any answer at all, the discovering party may move the trial court for an order compelling discovery.” Lo v. KOHL’s Food Stores Inc., No. 94-1667, at *1 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 1995).)

Dockets for Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in Wisconsin

Sort By

State of Wisconsin vs. Jasmine R Campbell

Filed

Apr 19, 2023

Status

Active

Judge

Hon. Brazeau, Nicholas J., Jr. 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Brazeau, Nicholas J., Jr.

Court

Wood County

County

Wood County, WI

Case #