The Corner Office PROFESSIONALISM

A Word to the Wise: Seek Discovery

We all know how adversarial discovery issues can become. Often, motions to compel must be filed to obtain what a party deems responsive and discoverable. Although sanctions for alleged discovery abuse or misconduct are permitted under both the FRCP and ORCP, parties considering whether to move for such reliefeither independently or as part of a motion to compel - should not make that decision lightly. Among other things, baselessly moving for sanctions can prolong litigation, curb one’s credibility with the court, halt settlement discussions, and negatively affect one’s reputation with opposing counsel. While circumstances of course exist where discovery sanctions are appropriate, it is worth reviewing the legal grounds under ORCP 46 and FRCP 37 and 26 for which a court may impose discovery sanctions. Under ORCP 46, a party may be sanctioned for failure to obey a court order compelling discovery, appear for a deposition, answer requests for admissions within time limits, or comply with or object to a request for production. FRCP 37 and 26 permit sanctions under the same circumstances, as well as when a party fails to respond to interrogatories.

The US Supreme Court has also confirmed that courts possess inherent authority to impose sanctions “for conduct