“[A] litigant may make a motion for an order compelling discovery. Ifthe order compelling discovery is not complied with, rule 37 authorizes theimposition of sanctions.” (See In re Estate of Schindler, 7 Neb. App.300, 310 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998); Neb. Sup. Ct. R. 6-337.)
Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
“The Nebraska Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of thediscovery process is to provide an adequate pretrial preparation as a basisfor an informed cross-examiner and informative cross-examination. Further,the discovery process enables litigants to prepare for a trial without theelement of an opponent's tactical surprise.”(See Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad (1987) 225 Neb. 527, 407 N.W.2d 146;Cohen v. Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District (1999) 8 Neb. App.807, 815.)
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,which is relevant, and the district court may make any order which justicerequires to protect a party from undue burden or expense.” (See State ex Rel. Acme Rug Cleaner v. Likes (1999) 256 Neb.34, 44; 26(b)(1)and (c).)
“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will beinadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See TYMAR,LLC v. TWO MEN A TRUCK (2011) 282 Neb. 692, 701.)
“[D]iscovery rules are broadly written to permitdiscovery.”(See Stetson v. Silverman (2009) 278 Neb. 389, 403; State ex rel. Acme RugCleaner v. Likes (1999) 256 Neb. 34, 588 N.W.2d 783.)
Rules for Filing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
Rule 6-337 of the Nebraska Supreme Court Rules governs the process ofsubmitting a motion to compel discovery.
“A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all personsaffected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as providedfor in Neb. Ct. R. Disc. § 6-337(a).”(See DeGeorge v. DiGiorgio's Sportswear, Inc., No. A-20-266, at *8 (Neb. Ct.App. Jan. 12, 2021).)
The rule states, “A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties andall persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery asfollows: (2) Motion. If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded orsubmitted under Rule 30 or 31, or a corporation or other entity fails to makea designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a), or a party fails to answer aninterrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a requestfor inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection willbe permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested,the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or adesignation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with therequest.”(See Neb. Sup. Ct. R. 6-337.)
Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
“A trial court has broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiaryrulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial.” (SeeDeGeorge v. DiGiorgio's Sportswear, Inc., No. A-20-266, at *8 (Neb. Ct. App.Jan. 12, 2021); Beran v. Nebraska Ortho. & Sports Medicine (2020) 28 Neb.App. 686, 948 N.W.2d 796; Putnam v. Scherbring (2017) 297 Neb. 868, 878, 902N.W.2d 140, 147.)
“On appellate review, decisions regarding discovery are generallyreviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”(See Liljestrand v. Dell Enters., No. A-20-695, at *7 (Neb. Ct. App. May 25,2021); State v. Soto (2003) 11 Neb. App. 667, 659 N.W.2d 1.)
“A judicial abuse of discretion exists when a judge, within theeffective limits of authorized judicial power, elects to act or refrains fromacting, and the selected option results in a decision which is untenable andunfairly deprives a litigant of a substantial right or a just result inmatters submitted for disposition through a judicial system.” (See id.)
Notable Decisions Discussing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
“Under rule 26(b)(1), the standard is not whether a discovery requestinquires into matters which are not relevant or otherwise admissible in thetrial of the matter, but whether the request is reasonably calculated to leadto the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Knudsen v. Mutual ofOmaha Ins. Co. (1999) 257 Neb. 912, 919; State ex rel. Acme Rug Cleaner v.Likes (1999) 256 Neb. 34, 588 N.W.2d 783.)
“A purpose of the discovery process is exploration of all available andproperly discoverable information to narrow the fact issues in controversy sothat a trial may be an efficient and economical resolution of adispute.” (See Christianson v. Educational Serv. Unit No. 16 (1993) 243Neb. 553, 564; Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad (1987) 225 Neb. 527, 536.),407 N.W.2d at 153, citing Tabatchnick v. G.D. Searle Company, 67 F.R.D. 49(D.N.J. 1975).
“If the parties fall short of their discovery obligations, § 6-337allows the court to sanction them. When a party fails to obey an order toprovide or permit discovery, a court in which the action is pending may makesuch orders in regard to the failure as are just. This includes "[a]norder striking out pleadings . . . or dismissing the action or proceeding orany part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedientparty.” (See Chelli v. Baca, No. A-20-892, at *13 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan.25, 2022); Hill v. Tevogt (2016) 293 Neb. 429, 879 N.W.2d 369; Neb. Ct. R.Disc. § 6-337(b)(2).)
