Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Wisconsin

What Is a Motion to Compel Production of Documents?

Background

“Parties to civil litigation may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action" even though the information sought would not be admissible at trial as long as the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Borgwardt v. Redlin (1995) 196 Wis. 2d 342, 350.)

“The parameters of permissible discovery are broad by necessity.” (See Sands v. Whitnall Sch. Dist (2008) 312 Wis. 2d 1, 15.)

“[T]his breadth is essential because the purpose of discovery is identical to the purpose of our trial system — the ascertainment of truth.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Discovery of materials “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative, including an attorney or an insurer, is available only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and that the party seeking discovery is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” (See Dilger v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2015) 868 N.W.2d 177, 184.)

“[M]ental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation are protected against disclosure.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The standard of review for discovery decisions is whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering or prohibiting discovery.” (See Frankard v. Amoco Oil Co. (1983) 116 Wis. 2d 254, 267.)

“Motions to compel discovery implicate a circuit court's exercise of discretion.” (See Dilger v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2015) 868 N.W.2d 177, 184.)

“A trial court's discretionary determination will be upheld on appeal if it is consistent with the facts of record and established legal principles.” (See Borgwardt v. Redlin (1995) 196 Wis. 2d 342, 350.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “a party may seek a protective order to limit access to pretrial discovery material if the party shows good cause.” (See State ex Rel. Mitsubishi v. Milwaukee County (2000) 233 Wis. 2d 1, 26.)

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.” (See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. McClellan, No. 95-1569, at *1 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 1996).)

Dockets for Motion to Compel Production of Documents 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 #