Suggestions in Support of or in Opposition to Discovery Requests

Court Rules

Rule 32 - Discovery

Rule 32.2.5 - Suggestions in Support of or in Opposition to Discovery Requests

1. All suggestions in support of or in opposition to motions relating to discovery requests shall be limited to five (5) pages in length and shall be organized in compliance with the following format, unless leave of Court is otherwise granted:

I. Statement of case (type and status)

II. Prior discovery disputes

III. Discovery sought

IV. Issues raised by discovery dispute

V. Citations and argument supporting or opposing discovery

VI. Sanctions, attorney fees, and costs sought, if any

2. Suggestions that are not in compliance with the above format shall be disregarded by the Court. See sample suggestions, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

10/23/87

SAMPLE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

Jane Doe,
Plaintiff.
vs. CV87-99999

John Roe,
Defendant

SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF DISCOVERY

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a negligence suit filed on September 30, 1987, arising from an automobile accident which occurred at 12th and Main, Kansas City, Missouri. The amount sought is $10,000 actual damages and $100,000 punitive damages.

PRIOR DISCOVERY DISPUTES

There have been no discovery disputes or problems regarding discovery in this case prior to those raised in the within motion and suggestions.

DISCOVERY SOUGHT

Plaintiff filed interrogatories on the same date the lawsuit was filed, which were served on the Defendant with the summons on October 5, 1987. Plaintiff seeks, among other information, disclosure of the names and addresses of all persons and companies which have performed work or service on Defendant's 1970 Chevrolet in the last six (6) months.

CIRCUIT COURT RULE 32.2.5
EXHIBIT "A"
ISSUES

Defendant objects to the propounded interrogatories on the basis that the information sought is a) irrelevant and b) burdensome.

CITATIONS AND ARGUMENT

A. The burden for supporting an objection to an interrogatory is on the defendant. Defendant cites no factual reasons nor legal authority for stating that the request is irrelevant. In fact, the state of repair of his automobile is of utmost relevance in this case as Plaintiff intends to prove as alleged, that the automobile was not in a safe driving condition at the time of the accident and that the Defendant was aware of this fact. See Smith v. Jackson, 999 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. 1987).
B. In order for a discovery request to be burdensome it must be "unduly oppressive." White v. Blair, 999 S.W.2d 221 (Mo. 1987). Certainly the number of persons and companies who have worked on or repaired Defendant's automobile in the last six (6) months cannot be so great that it would "unduly oppress" the Defendant to disclose them.

SANCTIONS SOUGHT

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff moves that the Court order Defendant to comply with discovery sought, by answering the interrogatories submitted to him within thirty (30) days and, upon a failure to do so, order the Defendant to pay the sum of $200.00 for attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff as supported by the statement attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A".