Case Name: DANIELS v. ALLEN INDUSTRIES, INC
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-11-28
Citations: 43 Mich. App. 726
Docket Number: Docket No. 12885
Parties: DANIELS v ALLEN INDUSTRIES, INC
Judges: Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and Quinn and Bronson, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 43
Pages: 726–734

Head Matter:
DANIELS v ALLEN INDUSTRIES, INC
Opinion op the Court
1. Discovery — Production op Documents — Motion—Discretion— Show Cause.
The granting of a party’s pretrial motion for the production of documents prepared for the opposite party prior to litigation is discretionary with the court, and a cause must be shown by the moving party to require the court to exercise its discretion (GCR 1963, 310).
2. Appeal and Error — Discovery—Motion—Discretion—Abuse op Discretion — Standard op Review.
In determining whether the denial of a motion for pretrial discovery was an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion the question is whether denial of the motion was so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.
Dissent by V. J. Brennan, P. J.
3. Appeal and Error — Discretion—Abuse of Discretion — Standard op Review.
The standard of review employed by an appellate court in determining abuse of discretion, that the result reached by the trial court must be so palpably and grossly violative offset and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but deñance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias, is not appropri ate in situations where the reasons advanced by the lower court for its decision are erroneous.
Reperences for Points in Headnotes
23 Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery § 149.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 772.
23 Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery § 157.
Scope or extent, as regards books, records, or documents to be produced or examined, permissible in order for inspection, 58 ALR 1263.
23 Am Jur 2d, Depositions and Discovery § 150.
4. Discovery — Pretrial Motion — Production op Documents — Admissibility at Trial — Court Rules.
The court rules provide that documents sought by discovery *be relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, and no longer bar the production of documents because they would not be admissible at the trial of the case (GCR 1963, 302.2, 310.1).
5. Discovery — Court Rules — "Good Cause”.
The prerequisite showing for an order permitting discovery is not limited to good cause in relation to answering or countering evidence or testimony to be used at trial, but includes any good cause in relation to the purposes sought to be achieved by modem liberal discovery (GCR 1963, 306.2).
Appeal from Wayne, Michael L. Stacey, J.
Submitted Division 1 June 12, 1972, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 12885.)
Decided November 28, 1972.
Leave to appeal granted, 389 Mich 788.
Complaint by Beatrice Daniels and Mary Felder, for themselves and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, against Allen Industries, Inc., to enjoin operation of defendant’s manufacturing plant as a nuisance and for damages. Plaintiffs’ pretrial motion for production by defendant of certain documents denied. Plaintiffs appeal by leave granted.
Affirmed.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone (by Charles L. Burleigh, Jr.), for plaintiffs.
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn (by Robert A. lineman), for defendant.
Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and Quinn and Bronson, JJ.

Opinion:
Quinn, J.
July 31, 1970, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against defendant alleging that defendant operated its manufacturing plant in a manner that created air and noise pollution and a fire hazard in violation of city and county ordinances and that the operation constituted a nuisance. Plaintiffs further alleged that as a direct and proximate result of the maintenance of the nuisance, they suffered physical discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, loss of the peaceful enjoyment of their home, and irreparable damage to their health. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages.
As the result of interrogatories served on defendant by plaintiffs, they learned of and identified certain documents in defendant's possession. These documents consisted of letters, reports, memoranda, and studies, all prepared prior to this litigation for defendant by its air pollution consultants concerning air pollution problems at defendant's plant. Plaintiffs then moved under GCR 1963, 310 for production of these documents on the basis that they contained relevant material evidence which might be utilized in whole or in part by defendant at trial. Following oral argument and consideration of briefs, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion in an extensive opinion which was implemented by an order of denial. On leave granted, plaintiffs appeal.
The grant or denial of the discovery sought by plaintiffs was discretionary with the trial court, Covington Mutual Insurance Co v Copeland, 382 Mich 109, 111 (1969). This discretion can be moved only by "cause shown", Covington, supra.
Discretion and abuse thereof are defined in Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382, 384-385 (1959):
"The term discretion itself involves the idea of choice, of an exercise of the will, of a determination made between competing considerations. In order to have an 'abuse' in reaching such determination, the result must be so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias."
The determinative question on this appeal is not whether we accept the reasons advanced by the trial judge for denial of the discovery sought. The question is, was his determination and the result "so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias"? The record, briefs, and oral argument fail to persuade us that this denial of discovery can be so characterized. This conclusion obviates discussion of the other issues raised by this appeal.
Affirmed with costs to defendant.
Bronson, J., concurred.