Opinion ID: 1925181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motions to Compel

Text: ¶ 11. Next, we consider defendant's argument that the superior court abused its discretion by granting the State's two motions to compel discovery. Discovery rulings are entrusted to the broad discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed absent a showing that discretion was abused or entirely withheld. Schmitt v. Lalancette, 2003 VT 24, ¶ 9, 175 Vt. 284, 830 A.2d 16. So long as the trial court had a reasonable basis for its actions, we will not interfere with its discovery rulings even if another court might have reached a different conclusion on the same issue. State v. Simoneau, 2003 VT 83, ¶ 21, 176 Vt. 15, 833 A.2d 1280 (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 12. Defendant claims that to bolster the discoverability of the information it requested the State erroneously alleged in its first motion to compel that defendant's deceptive advertisement offered various technologies for sale, and that the trial court therefore erroneously granted the motion. We find defendant's argument unpersuasive. The text of the advertisement itself included language inviting Vermonters to [b]uy a furnace that runs on fumes from your septic tank to heat and cool your home. In addition, defendant's website sold videos, technologies, and dealerships. Thus, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to determine that any discovery requests related to defendant's offer of technologies for sale were within the scope of discovery. See V.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) (permitting discovery of any nonprivileged information relevant to the subject matter of the pending action). ¶ 13. Furthermore, we reject defendant's assertion that the court should not have granted the State's motions to compel without an evidentiary hearing on discovery. Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b)(2)  cited by defendant as requiring the court to grant his requests for a hearing  allows the court to decline a request to present evidence where it finds no genuine issue as to any material fact. Here, the court was justified in determining that no genuine issues of material fact existed pertaining to discovery, as the State's requests fell squarely within the scope of Rule 26(b) and defendant failed to present cogent arguments otherwise. See V.R.C.P. 78(b)(2) (The request for an opportunity to present evidence shall include a statement of the evidence which the party wishes to offer.). In fact, it was not until oral argument that defendant asserted the State's requests implicated trade secrets that should have been privileged from discovery. [2] It was therefore reasonable, and not an abuse of discretion, for the court to compel defendant's compliance with the State's discovery requests related to the underlying violation of the Act as well as defendant's ability to pay penalties. ¶ 14. We decline to address defendant's claim that the lower court's order to compel discovery amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant failed to raise the issue at the trial court, and, therefore, we will not consider it on appeal. State v. Ovitt, 2005 VT 74, ¶ 13, 178 Vt. 605, 878 A.2d 314 (mem.).