Issue: What rules govern whether a defendant should be compelled to produce and permit inspection and copying of the documents sought in a plaintiff’s request for production?
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Inspection and copying documents; Production and permission|
|Cited Statutes:||Minn. R. Civ. P. 34.01; Minn. R. Civ. P. 34.02; Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(b)(2); Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.04; Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03|
Minn. R. Civ. P. 34.01 provides in relevant part:
Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the party making the request, . . . to inspect and copy . . . any designated documents . . . .
Rule 34.02 provides the requesting party a remedy under these circumstances:
The party submitting the request may move for an order pursuant to Rule 37 with respect to any objection to or other failure to respond to the request, or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection as requested.
Rule 37.01(b)(2), in turn, provides that if a party “fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested, the discovering party may move for an order . . . compelling inspection in accordance with the request.” In addition, Rule 37.04 provides that where a party “fails . . . to serve a written response to a request for inspection submitted pursuant to Rule 34” the court may make such orders “as are just,” including requiring the non-compliant party to pay the moving party’s “reasonable expenses, including attorneys fee.” Moreover, the non-compliant party’s failure to serve a written response “may not be excused on the ground that discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by Rule 26.03.”