Hammes discovery order | 56-CV-20-794

Court: Minnesota District Court, Otter Tail County, Seventh Judicial District
Citation: Case No. 56-CV-20-794 (Aug. 31, 2020)
Case number: 56-CV-20-794
Document date: August 31, 2020
County: Otter Tail County
Deciding judge: Kevin M. Miller
Result: Motion to compel granted. Terry Magnuson was required to answer the interrogatories; attorney’s fees were not awarded.
Primary issue: Related interrogatory subparts, the 50-interrogatory limit, good cause for additional discovery and attorney’s fees.

About this document

Gregory and Stephanie Hammes asked the court to compel Terry Magnuson to answer interrogatories. Magnuson had refused some answers on the ground that the requests exceeded the 50 interrogatories allowed by the rules. The court granted the motion and required answers in accordance with the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the subquestions were logically and factually related to the primary questions. It also gave an alternative reason: even if the limit had been exceeded, good cause supported the discovery. The order declined to award attorney’s fees. This short trial-court ruling can be read alongside the Stevenson discovery order to compare how the court treated particular requests.

Passages to read

The order compelling discovery — Source PDF page 1: the court grants the motion and requires interrogatory answers.
Related subquestions — Source PDF page 2: the court explains why the interrogatories did not exceed the permitted number.
Alternative good-cause reasoning — Source PDF page 3: the court favors a liberal exchange of information and finds good cause even if the limit was exceeded.
Attorney’s fees declined — Source PDF page 3: the court does not award attorney’s fees.

Related Justice-Denied reporting

Read alongside

Stevenson v. Stevenson — December 21, 2021 discovery order

Reading and citation notes

The complete three-page order is reproduced, including all ten numbered findings and conclusions. The signed date reads 8/31/20. This is a trial-court ruling on these discovery requests, not an appellate precedent. Source PDF page markers are distinct from the reading edition’s pagination. Original wording, capitalization, labels and citation irregularities are retained; filing stamps and signature artwork remain in the original PDF.

Complete court order

Source PDF page 1

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Gregory P. Hammes and Stephanie C. Hammes,
Plaintiffs,
Vs.
Terry Magnuson, Barb Magnuson,
Steven Larson, and Lakes & Plains Realty, Inc.
d/b/a/ Coldwell Banker at the Lakes

Case No. 56-CV-20-794
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY

The above-entitled matter came on for a motion hearing using remote technology before the undersigned on July 27, 2020, at the Otter Tail County Courthouse, Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Attorney Joel Fremstad appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Gregory and Stephanie Hammes. Attorney Natalie Walz appeared on behalf of Defendants Lakes & Plains Realty, Inc; Steven Larson; and Terry Magnuson. Attorney Patrick Bakken appeared on behalf of Defendant Barb Magnuson. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery based upon their allegation that Defendant Terry Magnuson failed to adequately respond to interrogatories.

Based upon the entire file, the applicable law, the arguments of the parties, and for the reasoning set forth in the attached Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED.
2. Defendant Terry Magnuson shall provide Answers to Plaintiff’s interrogatories in accordance with the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein.

Source PDF page 2

Dated: 8/31/20 BY THE COURT:

Kevin M. Miller

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

1. Rule 33.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure provides the process for serving and responding to interrogatories.
2. Plaintiffs served interrogatories upon Terry Magnuson and Barb Magnuson on March 30, 2020.
3. Defendant Barb Magnuson adequately responded to the interrogatories according to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. Defendant Terry Magnuson refused to respond to a number of the interrogatories on the basis that the interrogatories allegedly exceeded the 50 permitted by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. On Jul 2, 2020, the Plaintiff’s filed a motion and accompanying documentation to compel discovery.
6. Defendant’s refusal to respond to the interrogatories is in conflict with both the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and the general principles of discovery.
7. The Court will not engage in the tedious task of explaining whether each interrogatory is appropriate on a line-by-line, question-by-question basis. The Court has reviewed the interrogatories and finds them to be appropriate. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s interrogatories do not exceed the permitted number because the “sub questions” are logically and factually related to the primary question.
Source PDF page 3 8. Even if the subparts of the interrogatories were not factually related to the primary question, the Court finds that the discovery process is best accomplished by the liberal exchange of information. This process serves to both expedite the case at hand and to prevent a backlog of unnecessary litigation in the Courts. Therefore, assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs did exceed the 50 interrogatory limit, there was good cause to do so.
9. As a sanction for violating discovery rules, a court may require a party “to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney fees[.]” Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(d)(1).
10. The Court does not find that a grant of attorney’s fees is appropriate at this time.

K.M.M.