Section 2.5 Relevancy Standard

• Library: Discovery 2015

Rule 56.01(b)(1) requires that a matter be relevant to the subject matter of the action before it is discoverable. A conflict exists in determining if “relevancy” refers to the issues framed by the pleadings at the time of discovery or if it is broad enough to permit discovery concerning matters that may become relevant to the case.

Missouri courts have wavered between the two interpretations. Under “notice pleading,” federal courts place emphasis on discovery to define the issues, while in Missouri, a pleader is required to state “facts” stating a claim, with less emphasis placed on the discovery process to sharpen the issues. See State ex rel. Papin Builders, Inc. v. Litz, 734 S.W.2d 853 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987); see also State ex rel. Thomasville Wood Prods., Inc. v. Buford, 512 S.W.2d 220, 223 (Mo. App. S.D. 1974) (the court refused to test relevancy on any “proposed or hypothetical issues” but looked only to whether the matters tended to prove issues contained in the present pleadings); State ex rel. Hof v. Cloyd, 394 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. banc 1965). For instance, in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Peters, 641 S.W.2d 156 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982), an uninsured motorist case, the court held that, until the plaintiff obtained a determination concerning liability of the uninsured motorist, he had no claim for vexatious refusal to pay and could not, therefore, obtain production of documents and...