Opinion ID: 865068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the scope of discovery

Text: 1 We could not find any authority to support this reading of the statute, or to denounce it. Rather, the cases focus on the judicial process exception. 9 ¶16. The scope of discovery is broad and non-privileged evidence is discoverable when it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” West v. West, 891 So. 2d 203, 219 (Miss. 2004) (citing M.R.C.P. 26(b)(1)). The trial court has considerable discretion relating to matters of discovery; its order will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of that discretion. Harkins v. Pascall , 348 So. 2d 1019, 1022 (Miss. 1997). This Court does not favor interlocutory appeals regarding discovery issues. ¶17. Capital One contends that, even though the GLBA does not prohibit the release of the names and addressed of all Mississippians who completed a Form 4136 over the period of two years, the information is still outside the scope of discovery. On the other hand, Page argues the evidence sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because she wants to know what disclosures were made to other Mississippians, if any, who completed a Form 4136. Apparently, Capital One produced “samples” of what they allege Page received pertaining to the credit account. Page asserts she never received these documents and seeks to ask other applicants if they received them to prove Capital One is incorrect or untruthful. ¶18. Considering the wide discretion afforded to trial judges in making discovery decisions, we cannot say there was an abuse of discretion here. The evidence sought is probative to validate Page’s claim that she did not receive adequate disclosures pertaining to her credit account with Capital One. If a significant number of applicants say they also did not receive such disclosures, it strengthens her claim. And the converse would, of course, be true. The 10 requested evidence could be probative of fraud should it reveal a clear pattern of nondisclosure. See Ex parte Allstate Ins. Co., 401 So. 2d 749, 751 (Miss. 1981) (“Evidence of similar misrepresentations made to others by the defendant is admissible in a fraud action.”). Moreover, this Court has stated that Mississippi law favors discovery, and limitations on discovery should be respected, but not extended. Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Miss. Div. of Medicaid, 853 So. 2d 1192, 1210 (Miss. 2003) (citing Dawkins v. Redd Pest Control Co., 607 So. 2d 1232, 1235 (Miss. 1992)). Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge’s discovery order.