Issue: WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL DEFENDANT TO COMPLY WITH PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS UNDER KENTUCKY LAW.
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Discovery requests; Relevancy |
| Jurisdiction: | Kentucky |
| Cited Cases: | 390 S.W.2d 153; 358 S.W.2d 524; 603 S.W.2d 918; 302 N.W.2d 711; 957 S.W.2d 722; 721 So. 2d 983; 929 P.2d 475; 705 S.W.2d 910; 576 So. 2d 1155; 613 S.W.2d 855; 690 S.W.2d 374; 411 S.E.2d 311; 489 N.E.2d 729; 288 S.E.2d 198 |
| Cited Statutes: | Ky. R. Civ. P. 26.02; |
| Date: | 06/01/2001 |
Under Kentucky law, the parties are entitled to “discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Ky. R. Civ. P. 26.02. “Relevancy is more loosely construed for purposes of discovery than for trial. It is not necessary that the information sought be admissible as competent evidence at trial,” but only “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Ewing v. May, 705 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Ky. 1986). A liberal application of the discovery rules is intended “to provide for full and frank disclosure of material evidence and situations to assist the courts to do justice.” Christoff v. Downing, 390 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Ky. 1965).
Relevancy is the touchstone for discovery inquiries. See Carpenter v. Wells, 358 S.W.2d 524, 526-27 (Ky. 1962) (observing that “relevancy” for discovery purposes relates to the subject matter in general and is not limited to the precise issues raised by the pleadings). Importantly, it is the party seeking to prevent discovery of information based on relevance who bears the burden of proof. Morrow v. Brown, Todd & Heyburn, 957 S.W.2d 722, 727 (Ky. 1997). Cf. Humana, Inc. v. Fairchild, 603 S.W.2d 918, 921-22 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980) (the trial court properly refused to compel party to produce information that, pursuant to stipulation, was not relevant to the action). The trial court has wide discretion over discovery issues, but will be […]