Opinion ID: 1287416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: payment for moore's defense

Text: Sturzenegger argues that the district court abused its discretion in quashing his subpoena for records of payments made to Moore's attorney. Sturzenegger's argument, in essence, is that if Boys Town were paying for Moore's defense, Moore might be biased, and Sturzenegger should have been permitted discovery to explore that bias. Sturzenegger cites no authority in support of his claim that he was entitled to discovery on this matter, nor are we able to discern in what way such information might be relevant to Moore's credibility. Moore had no motive to admit to sexual abuse, regardless of who might have been paying for his defense. [18,19] Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of any other party. [28] But the party asserting error in a discovery ruling bears the burden of showing that the ruling was an abuse of discretion. [29] Sturzenegger has not demonstrated the relevance of the information sought here and, therefore, has not shown an abuse of discretion.