Motion to Compel Discovery in Minnesota

What Is a Motion to Compel Discovery in Minnesota?

A motion to compel discovery is a request that the district court order a party or witness to provide discovery it has withheld. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(b)(2), “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.”

The rule names four situations that support the motion:

1. A deponent fails to answer a question asked at a deposition.
2. A corporation or other entity fails to designate a witness to testify for it under Rule 30.02(f) or 31.01(c).
3. A party “fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33.”
4. A party “fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted - or fails to permit inspection - as requested under Rule 34.”

A motion for an order against a party goes to the judge handling the lawsuit: “An application for an order to a party shall be made to the court in which the action is pending.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(a). A motion to compel enforces discovery the rules already allow, so each request it covers is still measured against the scope rule discussed below.

These are Minnesota state-court rules. If your company is in federal court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) governs instead, and it also requires a certification that the movant “has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer” before filing.

What Counts as a Discovery Failure Worth Compelling?

A complete refusal is not required. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(c), “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” A half-answer, an objection with no stated grounds, or an unannounced decision to hold back documents can each support the motion.

The response rules for each discovery tool spell out what a complete answer looks like:

• Interrogatories. “Objections shall state with particularity the grounds for the objection,” and answers “shall be stated fully in writing and shall be signed under oath or penalty of perjury,” for a company by an officer or managing agent. Minn. R. Civ. P. 33.01(c)-(d). The asking party “may move for an order under Rule 37.01 with respect to any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory.” For the basics, see how interrogatories work.
• Document requests. Each response must either agree to the inspection or “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons,” and “An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 34.02(c)(2)-(3).
• Privilege. A party withholding documents as privileged “shall make the claim expressly” and describe what it withheld so the other side can assess the claim. Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(f)(1). Companies face added questions about whose communications are covered; see attorney-client privilege inside a company.
• Depositions. A lawyer may instruct a witness not to answer “only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the court, or to present a motion under paragraph (d).” Minn. R. Civ. P. 30.04(a). The questioning party “may complete or adjourn the examination before applying for an order.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(b)(2).

Requests for admission follow a different path. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01, “The matter is admitted unless within 30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by the party’s attorney; but, unless the court shortens the time, a defendant shall not be required to serve answers or objections before the expiration of 45 days after service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant.” I suggest checking the current text of Minn. R. Civ. P. 36 and any court order before you count the days, because the court may shorten or lengthen the time. The requesting party “may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections” under Rule 36.01, rather than move to compel.

What Are the Rules for the Good-Faith Conference Before Filing?

You must try to resolve the dispute with the other side before filing, and certify that you did. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(b)(2), “The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action.”

A second conference rule covers civil motions in district court generally, not only discovery motions. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.10 provides: “No motion will be heard unless the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve their differences prior to the hearing. The moving party shall initiate the conference.” The moving party must also certify, before the hearing, “compliance with this rule or any reasons for not complying, including lack of availability or cooperation of opposing counsel.”

Skipping the conference costs money as well as time. The fee award under Rule 37.01(d)(1) does not apply if the court finds “that the motion was filed without the movant’s first making a good faith effort to obtain the discovery without court action.”

I suggest a conference letter that lists each disputed request by number, quotes the response, and states what would cure it, because that is the same content Rule 115.05 requires in the motion memo. A specific letter also gives the other side a clear chance to back down. In one matter, a motion to compel sought a nonparty law firm’s correspondence with my clients. The firm’s lawyer wrote to the moving party’s lawyer asking that the request be withdrawn, and the moving party withdrew it before the hearing. A nonparty in that position has its own path; see objecting to a nonparty subpoena.

How Do You File a Motion to Compel in Minnesota District Court?

A motion to compel is a nondispositive motion under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.01(a), which defines nondispositive motions to include “discovery.” You get a hearing date from the court administrator, then serve and file the motion papers ahead of that date.

The filing steps:

1. Get a hearing date. “A hearing date and time shall be obtained from the court administrator or a designated motion calendar deputy.” Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.02.
2. Serve and file the papers. Rule 115.04(a) provides: “No motion shall be heard until the moving party pays any required motion filing fee, serves the following documents on all opposing counsel and self-represented litigants, and files the documents with the court administrator at least 21 days before the hearing”. The documents are the notice of motion and motion, a proposed order, any affidavits and exhibits, and any memorandum of law. The rule adds that “the court may modify the time limits,” so I suggest checking the current text of Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115 and your judge’s orders before you count the days.
3. Keep the memo narrow. “For motions involving discovery requests, the moving party’s memorandum shall set forth only the particular discovery requests and the response or objection thereto which are the subject of the motion, and a concise recitation of why the response or objection is improper.” Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.05.

Two other rules shape the timing. The scheduling order the court enters under Minn. R. Civ. P. 16.02 limits the time “to file and hear motions” and “to complete discovery,” so I suggest reading those dates before the conference, because a motion heard after them runs against the order. And Rule 115.04, as amended effective July 1, 2026, provides in subdivision (d): “The moving party is encouraged to consider whether the motion can be informally resolved through a remote technology conference with the judge or judicial officer.” For the general mechanics of motion papers, see the mechanics of filing a court motion.

What Makes a Judge Grant or Deny a Motion to Compel?

The judge decides whether the withheld discovery falls within the scope of Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(b): “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Relevance alone is not enough. The request must also be proportional.

Rule 26.02(b) lists the proportionality factors:

• the importance of the issues at stake in the action;
• the amount in controversy;
• the parties’ relative access to relevant information;
• the parties’ resources;
• the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues; and
• “whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”

Admissibility is not the test: “Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” The court must limit discovery that is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(b)(3). For electronic data, the party resisting “must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost,” and even then the court may order it if the requesting party “shows good cause and proportionality.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(b)(2).

The judge has wide room on these calls. “The district court’s discovery-related orders will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Frontier Ins. Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 788 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 2010). The ruling need not be all or nothing: if a motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court “may enter any protective order authorized under Rule 26.03.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(d)(3). When the real concern is confidentiality rather than relevance, Rule 26.03(a) lets the court, on motion and “for good cause shown,” order that “a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way”; see a protective order for confidential business documents.

How Does Fee-Shifting Work on a Motion to Compel?

Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.01(d) makes the losing side of a motion to compel pay the winner’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, unless an exception applies. The rule works in both directions, so a weak motion can cost the company that brings it.

The three outcomes:

• Motion granted, or discovery provided after filing. The court “shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard,” require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion, its lawyer, or both “to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney fees.” Rule 37.01(d)(1).
• Motion denied. The court “may enter any protective order authorized under Rule 26.03” and shall require the moving party, its lawyer, or both to pay the opposing party’s reasonable expenses “unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Rule 37.01(d)(2).
• Split result. The court “may . . . apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.” Rule 37.01(d)(3).

The award in the first outcome does not apply if the court finds the movant skipped the good-faith effort, that the other side’s “nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified,” or “that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” I suggest pricing the fee rule into the decision to file, because it applies to both sides.

What Happens When a Party Ignores an Order Compelling Discovery?

A party that disobeys an order compelling discovery faces sanctions under Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.02(b), up to dismissal of its claims or a default judgment, plus the other side’s expenses. The rule reaches a failure by “a party or an officer, director, employee, or managing agent of a party,” so a company answers for its people.

The court “may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just,” including:

1. “An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order”;
2. “An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence”;
3. “An order striking pleadings or parts thereof, staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party”; and
4. a contempt order.

In addition, “the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising that party or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure,” unless the failure was substantially justified or an award would be unjust.

Dismissal with prejudice “is the most severe sanction available and should be granted in only exceptional circumstances.” Frontier, 788 N.W.2d 917. The Court of Appeals in Frontier looked at five factors: “(1) if the court set a date certain by which compliance was required, (2) if the court gave a warning of potential sanctions for noncompliance, (3) if the failure to cooperate with discovery was an isolated event or part of a pattern, (4) if the failure to comply was willful or without justification, and (5) if the moving party has demonstrated prejudice.” It affirmed dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims, and an award where “the special master awarded fees and costs in the amount of $177,419.14,” after years of missed deadlines, deficient supplemental answers, a warning, and findings of willfulness and prejudice. Lost electronic data has its own rule, Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.05; see missing emails and spoliation.

How Should a Business Respond When It Is Served With a Motion to Compel?

When your company is served with a motion to compel, its response papers are due before the hearing under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.04(b), and producing the discovery after the motion is filed does not by itself avoid a fee award. Rule 37.01(d)(1) applies the award “if the requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed.”

Rule 115.04(b) provides that the responding party shall “serve the following documents on all opposing counsel and self-represented litigants, and file the documents with the court administrator at least 14 days before the hearing”. A missed response carries its own risk: “If responsive documents are not properly served and filed in a nondispositive motion, the court may deem the motion unopposed and may grant the relief requested without a hearing.” Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.06.

The defenses that matter on fees are the ones in Rule 37.01(d)(1): the movant did not make a good-faith effort first, or your “nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified.” If a request reaches confidential or burdensome material, a protective-order motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03 states your position affirmatively, though a denial lets the court “order that any party or person provide or permit discovery,” and “Rule 37.01(d) applies to the award of expenses.”

Complete responses leave less to compel. When I helped one business client prepare written responses to document requests, its draft answered by subject rather than by request number. I advised a separate written answer under each numbered request, and, where the client had nothing, a statement that a reasonable search found no such documents, because a blank reads as a refusal to answer. The duty continues after service: a party must supplement a response “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.05(a). In Frontier, the court noted that “Frontier was under a continuing obligation to supplement incomplete discovery responses even after the discovery deadline.” For the full defense-side picture, see how civil discovery works for a business defendant.

Weighing a Motion to Compel

A motion to compel in Minnesota is a court-rules process: Rule 37 supplies the grounds, the conference certification, the fee award, and the sanctions, and Rule 115 supplies the calendar and the shape of the papers. On either side, the practical question is whether your position would be “substantially justified” if a judge looked at it, because that phrase decides who pays for the motion. More on how these disputes fit into a larger case is on my litigation practice page. If your company is on either side of a discovery dispute in a Minnesota lawsuit, email [email protected] with a brief description. Please wait for an intake and conflict check before sending the discovery requests, responses, or any confidential documents.