Idaho Motion to Compel

Introduction

Key Things to Know

1. 1

   Idaho's compel provision is a short list with a gap in the middle of it, and the gap moved every letter after it. I.R.C.P. 37(a)(3)(A), captioned 'To Compel a Discovery Response', lets a party seeking discovery move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection, and it is available if a deponent fails to answer a question under Rule 30 or 31, an entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4), a party fails to answer an interrogatory under Rule 33, or a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted or fails to permit it under Rule 34. Subparagraph (B) is not a second ground; it is 'Related to a Deposition', letting the party asking a question complete or adjourn the examination before moving.

2. 2

   Rule 26(a) in Idaho is captioned 'Discovery Methods' and lists six of them: depositions on oral examination or written questions, written interrogatories, production of documents or electronically stored information or tangible things, entry onto land, physical and mental examinations, and requests for admission. There is no required-disclosure subsection, no planning-conference provision and no waiting period before requests may go out. Rules 33, 34 and 36 each say requests may be served on the plaintiff after commencement of the suit and on any other party with or after service of the summons and complaint, so discovery can start at the outset and the right to move arrives 30 days later. Two of the six subsections do work on a compel dispute. 26(e) is Supplementing Responses, which is what an out-of-date answer falls under. 26(f)(1) makes every discovery request, response or objection a signed certification that it is consistent with the rules, not interposed for an improper purpose such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay, and neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome nor expensive.

3. 3

   Requests for admission are not on the 37(a)(3) list and have their own vehicle. Under Rule 36(a)(4) a matter is admitted unless a written answer or objection is served within 30 days, and under Rule 36(a)(7) the requesting party 'may move to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection'. Unless the court finds an objection justified it must order that an answer be served, and on finding an answer non-compliant it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served, or defer the decision until a pretrial conference. Rule 36(a)(7) then borrows the money provision: Rule 37(a)(5) applies to an award of expenses.

4. 4

   Nothing in Idaho's rules puts a clock on the filing. There is no window measured from the response, no waiver of the right to compel, and no provision conditioning the court's consideration of the motion on an earlier conference. Where you are matters more than when. Rule 1(b) applies these rules uniformly in the district courts and the magistrate's divisions of the district courts, so the same discovery rules reach a magistrate's case, while small claims run on the Idaho Small Claims Rules and family law on the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure. Rule 1(c) then lets the district judges of each judicial district make their own internal case-management rules, which is where hearing and setting practice comes from not from Rule 37.

5. 5

   Written discovery is never filed in Idaho, which changes what you have to carry. Rules 33(e), 34(d) and 36(e) each say neither the requests nor the responses go to the court; the propounding party keeps the originals and the proof of service for 1 year after final disposition and the expiry of any appeal period, and only a notice of when and on whom service was made is filed. So the judge reading your motion has no copy of either document. Rule 33(c)(2) tells you what to hand up: only the portion of the interrogatory or answer relied on, and excerpts from copies will do unless a genuine issue of authenticity is raised.

6. 6

   Idaho prescribes the shape of the response not the shape of what you file. Rule 33(b)(3) requires the answers to set forth each interrogatory asked before the answer or objection, Rule 34(b)(2)(B) requires the response to set forth each request asked before the response or objection, and Rule 36(a)(5) does the same for requests for admission. Two further defects are worth checking before you draft. Rule 33(b)(4) says a ground for objecting not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court for good cause excuses the failure. And Rule 26(f)(2) says other parties have no duty to act on an unsigned request, response or objection, and the court must strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied once the omission is pointed out.

7. 7

   Rule 37(a)(5) is captioned Payment of Expenses; Protective Orders, and the verb in it is must on both limbs. Three findings bar the award on a granted motion; only two bar it against a losing movant, because the one about moving too early has no movant-side mirror. On a split result 37(a)(5)(C) lets the court apportion instead. Then read the provision that runs against the winner, which sits in the production rule rather than in Rule 37: under 34(b)(2)(E)(iv) a court ordering production may also order the requesting party to pay the reasonable expenses of any extraordinary steps required to retrieve and produce electronically stored information.

Idaho Requirements for Motion to Compel

• The Subparagraph You Cite, Which Is 37(a)(3)(A) and Not 37(a)(3)(B)

  I.R.C.P. 37(a)(3)(A) is captioned To Compel a Discovery Response and is the provision that gets you an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. Idaho has no disclosure subparagraph ahead of it, so its 37(a)(3)(B) is Related to a Deposition rather than a second ground. Reprints of this rule carrying the longer federal title and an extra subparagraph are not reproducing Idaho's text.

• Which of the Four Grounds in 37(a)(3)(A) You Are Relying On

  The rule lists them: a deponent who fails to answer a question asked under Rule 30 or 31, an entity that fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4), a party who fails to answer an interrogatory under Rule 33, and a party who fails to respond that inspection will be permitted or fails to permit it under Rule 34. If the device was requests for admission, none of the four applies and the vehicle is Rule 36(a)(7), a motion to determine the sufficiency of an answer or objection, to which Rule 37(a)(5) applies on expenses.

• Whether Anything Was Served at All, Which Opens a Second Route

  An inadequate response keeps you in 37(a), where 37(a)(4) provides that an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. A party that served nothing, or failed to appear for its own deposition, also exposes itself under Rule 37(d), where the court may order sanctions directly without a compel order first, and where 37(d)(2) says the failure is not excused on the ground that the discovery was objectionable unless a protective-order motion is already pending.

• The Dates Showing the 30 Days Had Run

  Rule 33(b)(2) gives 30 days after being served with the interrogatories, Rule 34(b)(2)(A) gives 30 days after being served with the request, and Rule 36(a)(4) admits the matter unless an answer or objection is served within 30 days. Idaho carries no longer alternative period for a defendant served early in the case. All three move only by stipulation under Rule 29 or by court order. State the computation, because a motion brought before the period has run is premature.

• What You Attach, Since the Court Has No Copy of Either Document

  Rules 33(e), 34(d) and 36(e) keep the requests and the responses out of the court file and require the propounding party to hold the originals and the proof of service for 1 year after final disposition and the expiry of any appeal period, filing only a notice of when and upon whom service was made. Rule 33(c)(2) and Rule 36(d) direct that only the portion relied on be submitted on a motion, with excerpts from copies acceptable unless a genuine issue of authenticity is raised. Nothing else is prescribed, so this is your choice to make.

• The Certification Rule 37(a)(1) Prescribes

  Rule 37(a)(1) requires the motion to include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. Idaho attaches no procedural penalty to its absence; the penalty is monetary, because 37(a)(5)(A)(i) bars the expense award where the motion was filed before that attempt. Keep the correspondence, since the same record answers the substantial-justification question either way.

• Defects in the Response Itself, Which Idaho Prescribes the Form Of

  Rule 33(b)(3) requires the answers to set forth each interrogatory asked before the answer or objection, Rule 34(b)(2)(B) requires the response to set forth each request asked before the response or objection, and Rule 36(a)(5) does the same for requests for admission. Rule 33(b)(4) waives any ground for objecting not stated in a timely objection unless the court for good cause excuses the failure. Rule 26(f)(2) removes any duty to act on an unsigned request, response or objection and requires the court to strike it unless a signature is promptly supplied once the omission is pointed out. Rule 33(a)(1) caps interrogatories at 40 including all discrete subparts, with leave granted only for good cause allowing a specific additional number.

• The Expense Request Under 37(a)(5)(A), and the Two Ways It Can Run Against You

  On a granted motion, or where the discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated it, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses including attorney's fees, barred only by three findings. Rule 37(a)(5)(B) runs the same must against a losing movant with two bars, and 37(a)(5)(C) lets the court apportion expenses on a split result. Separately, Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(iv) lets a court ordering production also order the requesting party to pay the reasonable expenses of extraordinary retrieval steps. Attorney review is available as an option.