Also known as: motion to compel · motion to compel discovery · compel motion · motion to compel production
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device by which a party seeks a court order requiring another party to respond to discovery requests or produce withheld materials after good-faith conferral has failed. The moving party must demonstrate that the requested information falls within the scope of permissible discovery and that any asserted objections lack merit. When electronically stored information is at issue, the responding party bears the initial burden of showing that the sources are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Midwest Airlines refuses to search archived email servers for records of pilot training logs, claiming the data sits on legacy systems that would require expensive restoration. Mosaic Retail moves to compel production and shows that the logs directly address maintenance issues central to its breach-of-contract claim. The court orders limited production after finding good cause despite the asserted burden.
Maurice Marshall moves to compel production of internal memos that Mohawk Industries withheld on attorney-client grounds after an HR investigation. The district court grants the motion and orders disclosure. Mohawk seeks immediate appellate review, arguing that the order conclusively resolves a privilege claim that cannot be effectively reviewed after final judgment.
Apex Manufacturing withholds project files requested by supplier Beta Parts in a contract dispute. Beta moves to compel after the parties confer and Apex maintains the materials are irrelevant. The court grants the motion upon finding the documents fall within the scope of discovery and orders production within fourteen days.
Madison Meyers moves to compel a social worker's notes from counseling sessions with a police officer involved in a shooting. The officer asserts psychotherapist-patient privilege. The court denies the motion after recognizing the privilege and finding no waiver or compelling need for the protected communications.
Malcolm McKinley moves to compel production of a newspaper's confidential membership lists in a defamation suit. The newspaper resists and seeks a protective order limiting dissemination. The court grants the motion to compel but simultaneously issues a protective order restricting use of the lists to the litigation.
Plaintiff Quinn sues Defendant Rivera for unpaid invoices and serves interrogatories on corporate structure. Rivera provides only objections. Quinn moves to compel complete answers after meet-and-confer efforts fail. The court grants the motion and awards fees for the unnecessary filing.
The requesting party must first overcome the responding party's demonstration of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may still order discovery upon a further demonstration of good cause that considers the proportionality factors in Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
A motion to compel is appropriate after the parties confer and the responding party continues to withhold materials on work-product grounds. The moving party must then demonstrate substantial need and undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means.
…Beyer also refused to produce any notes or reports from Officer Redmond's counseling sessions. The plaintiffs filed another motion to compel Karen Beyer to answer certain questions to which objections had been made and to produce all of her notes and reports on Mary Lu Redmond. After Karen Beyer's second deposition session, the…
…allegedly some 4 million files, available at their offices in London for inspection by respondent. Respondent countered with a
…by defendant, brought an action against defendant and others for wrongful termination. The trial court granted defendant's
…refused, Carpenter maintains in this unlawful termination suit, Mohawk fired him under false pretenses. In granting Carpenter’s motion to compel
No. The Supreme Court has held that such orders are not immediately appealable because they can be adequately reviewed after final judgment and do not satisfy the collateral-order criteria.
The requesting party must establish both a substantial need for the materials and an inability to obtain their substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Ordinary fact work product receives qualified protection. Opinion work product receives heightened protection.