Bean v. Best
Decision Date | 23 January 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 9610,9610 |
Citation | 76 S.D. 462,80 N.W.2d 565 |
Parties | Zelda BEAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glenn BEST, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Whiting, Lynn & Freiberg, Rapid City, for defendant-appellant.
Bangs & McCullen, Joseph M. Butler, Rapid City, for plaintiff-respondent.
In this case the defendant, a county sheriff, is being sued for damages arising out of a false arrest and imprisonment. He was insured against such liability under a group insurance policy. Before trial he was ordered to obtain and produce a copy of the master policy under which he was so insured and to permit the plaintiff to inspect it. His appeal from this intermediate order is prosecuted pursuant to permission granted as provided in SDC 33.0704-33.0707.
This method of discovery is provided for in SDC 36.0601. That section, so far as here material, is as follows
'(1) Order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody, or control.'
In adopting this section in 1939 we copied Rule 34 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Our statute remains unchanged while Rule 34 has undergone substantial liberalizing amendment.
In support of her motion plaintiff alleged that the policy of insurance she wanted produced
It should be noted that the order may be issued only upon good cause shown and is limited to the production of 'designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action'. Appellant's contention on this appeal is that the document which he was ordered to produce does not 'constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action'. Respondent in support of the court's action contends that the quoted language is not controlling.
She is asking us to make this specific language more general in its application by construing it and SDC 36.0505 as being in pari materia. That section makes provision for discovery by deposition and provides that: 'the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action'. While both of these sections are a part of our discovery procedure each concerns a different specific phase thereof. We agree that our rules concerning discovery should be liberally construed. However, we are unwilling by construction to alter the scope of any phase by reading into it the scope provided by another rule for a different phase. Each rule spells out the scope of its operation and it is within that area that the doctrine of liberal construction applies. What plaintiff wants us to do to SDC 36.0601 by construction was done in Federal Rule 34 by amendment.
The amendment referred to has made Federal Rule 34 much more liberal than our corresponding rule SDC 36.0601, respecting the documents or objects whose production may be ordered under the rule. This liberalization was accomplished by extending the scope of the examination under Federal Rule 26(b), the deposition--discovery rule, and then making that scope the criterion of documents or objects subject to production under Federal Rule 34. In view of this, federal decisions concerning the amended rule are not too helpful in our decision of the question before us. Rather, it is our view that decisions construing Federal Rule 34 before its amendment--when it was the same as our present statute, are significant.
Concerning these cases Alexander Holtzoff had this to say, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weisbeck v. Hess
...the scope of discovery, this court has stated: The scope of pretrial discovery is, for the most part, broadly construed. Bean v. Best, 76 S.D. 462, 80 N.W.2d 565 (1957). SDCL 15-6-26(b) provides, "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the su......
-
Maynard v. Heeren
...our rules permit expansive discovery: The scope of pretrial discovery is, for the most part, broadly construed. Bean v. Best, 76 S.D. 462, 80 N.W.2d 565 (1957). SDCL 15-6-26(b) provides, "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject mat......
-
Lucas v. District Court of Pueblo County in Tenth Judicial Dist., 18859
...it is held that discovery is permissible only in respect to matters which constitute admissible evidence. In this group is Bean v. Best, 76 S.D. 462, 80 N.W.2d 565, wherein it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to an order compelling production of an insurance policy for inspectio......
-
Kunkel v. United Sec. Ins. Co. of N. J.
...that under the case law of this state when the action was tried there was no affirmative duty to disclose policy limits. See Bean v. Best, 76 S.D. 462, 80 N.W.2d 565. 5 Nevertheless, it has been recognized as relevant to evaluating a case and as an aid in achieving settlements. See Cernocky......