Webster v. Schwartz

• Decision Date: 15 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 36832,36832
• Citation: 249 Minn. 224,81 N.W.2d 867
• Parties: Frank L. WEBSTER, Appellant, v. Paul SCHWARTZ et al., Respondents, Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company, Additional Defendant, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 867

81 N.W.2d 867

249 Minn. 224

Frank L. WEBSTER, Appellant, v. Paul SCHWARTZ et al., Respondents Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company, Additional Defendant, Respondent.

No. 36832.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 15, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as a prerequisite to the issuance of an order permitting discovery of documents for inspection, copying, or photographing, the moving party must show good cause. There a motion made under this rule is, in effect, a blanket request to examine practically all of a party's books, records, and documents, without any showing that they are pertinent to or have anything to do with the action, an order denying inspection must be affirmed.

2. If, at the time a motion for summary judgment is heard under Rule 56.03, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and it appears that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as shown by the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories which may also be considered, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, the motion for summary judgment should be granted. Held that the order granting summary judgment to the additional defendant in the instant case should be affirmed.

3. Rule 15.01 provides that a party, after a responsive pleading has been served, may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. It further provides that leave shall be freely granted when justice so requires. Such a motion to amend is addressed to the sound discretion of the court which is vested with large discretionary powers. Held, in the instant case, that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint for the second time after issue was joined and before passing on the motion of the additional defendant for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

Sachs, Karlins, Grossman & Karlins, by Louis Sachs and Richard F. Sachs, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Daniel S. Feidt, Robert I. Lang and Lester Sokol, Minneapolis, for respondents.

DELL, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the additional defendant entered pursuant to a motion for summary judgment. On January 5, 1955, plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants Paul Schwartz and Penn Development Company. The complaint alleged that plaintiff and the defendants entered into a joint venture for the purpose of purchasing, developing, and selling real estate in the city of Minneapolis; that certain real estate, including that described in the complaint, was acquired by the plaintiff and the defendants; that defendants were endeavoring to exclude the plaintiff from his interest therein and an accounting was demanded. Nowhere in the complaint was the Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company mentioned.

On January 10 an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff against the same defendants and the Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company was named as an additional defendant. This company, for convenience, will be referred to as the additional defendant. The amended complaint contained the identical allegations of the original complaint and in addition an allegation that the additional defendant appeared to be the record owner of real estate described in the complaint and that it was joined as a defendant for the purpose of determining its interest in said premises. Plaintiff requested no relief as to the additional defendant. The answer of the additional defendant alleged that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against it; admitted that it was the record owner of real estate described in the complaint; and denied all other allegations. On April 28, upon demand of the plaintiff in discovery proceedings under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition of Marvin H. Anderson, president and treasurer of the additional defendant, was taken, and on June 2 the plaintiff, in answer to an interrogatory propounded to him by the additional defendant under Rule 33, admitted that the plaintiff and the additional defendant had never entered into any agreements for the purpose of purchasing, developing, and selling real estate in the city of Minneapolis.

On May 10 plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 34, moved the court to require the additional defendant to produce and permit the inspection, copying, or photographing of various of its contracts, deeds, records, checks, books, journals, ledgers, files, and numerous other instruments. This motion was heard on June 1 and denied on June 3.

Thereupon the additional defendant moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 and thereafter plaintiff moved for leave to interpose a second amended complaint. Both motions came on for hearing before the court on July 18. The motion of the plaintiff for leave to interpose a second amended complaint was denied and the motion of the additional defendant for summary judgment was granted. Judgment was entered and this appeal was taken.

The assignments of error present three questions for review. Did the trial court err: (1) In refusing to allow plaintiff discovery under Rule 34? (2) In granting summary judgment in favor of the additional defendant? (3) In refusing to allow plaintiff's second amended complaint?

1. Under Rule 34, as a prerequisite to the issuance of an order permitting discovery, the moving party must show good cause. In the instant case plaintiff's motion made under this rule for the right to inspect, copy, and photograph documents of the additional defendant, was, in effect, a blanket request to examine practically all of defendant's books, records, and documents without any showing that they had anything to do with the action or that he had any right to an accounting. The rule was never intended for such purpose. ¹

In Baskerville v. Baskerville, 246 Minn. 496, 75 N.W.2d 762, this court pointed out that Rule 34 is expressly made subject to Rule 30.02. This latter rule provides that the court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, expense, embarrassment, or oppression and that the power of the court in this respect shall be exercised with liberality in order to protect parties. In the Baskerville case we stated, 246 Minn. 506, 75 N.W.2d 769:

'* * * The tenor of the new rules is to permit a wide discovery and investigation of the facts under Rule 26.02 and Rule 34 but not to permit such discovery and investigation to be used in bad faith or in such a Manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, oppress, or injure the parties or witnesses * * *.

'Obviously the trial court has a wide discretion as to the means to be employed in protecting the parties and witnesses.'

Judge Anderson, who denied plaintiff's motion for discovery and inspection of documents, in a memorandum attached to the order, stated that it would be a 'mockery' if 'without first establishing his controverted right to an accounting, plaintiff in this case could plow through the books of somebody else's business and make them public property in effect without first establishing his right to an accounting.' It is difficult to disagree with this reasoning. Certainly on the record here it cannot be said that in denying the motion the lower court abused its discretion even had the complaint stated a cause of action against the additional defendant.

There is another cogent reason, however, why the order denying plaintiff's motion for discovery and inspection of documents of the additional defendant was right. Rule 8.01 provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain '(1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled, * * *.' At the time that plaintiff moved for discovery and production of documents of the additional defendant on May 10 under Rule 34 and at the time of the hearing of said motion on June 1, it is clear that the complaint did not state a cause of action against the additional defendant for it wholly failed to comply with the foregoing provisions of Rule 8.01.

2. The motion of the additional defendant for summary judgment and plaintiff's motion for leave to interpose his second proposed amended complaint came on for hearing before Judge Theodore B. Knudson. At the time the motion for summary judgment was made, from the pleadings as they then stood, as previously pointed out, it is clear that no cause of action or claim showing that plaintiff was entitled to relief was stated against the additional defendant under Rule 8.01. After the motion for summary judgment was made, plaintiff, for the first time, served its second proposed amended complaint. In granting the motion of the additional defendant for summary judgment, and in denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint for the second time, the court, in a memorandum, said:

'This Court is aware of the rule of broad liberality in the amendment of pleadings. Here we have an attempt to amend a pleading a second time and in this case following a motion for summary judgment. This Court is of the opinion that under the circumstances of this particular case the motion should not be granted. * * *

'Under the pleadings, interrogatories and the files and records herein, this Court is of the opinion there is no fact issue alleged constituting a material issue for trial.' (Italics supplied.)

Rule 56.03 is plain. If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, as shown by the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, ² the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith. From the pleadings, deposition, answers to interrogatories, as well as other useable material in the file, and absent the proposed second amended complaint, the trial court was clearly right in granting summary judgment.

3. That brings up the final and really decisive question...