KEITH RAPP, Vice Chief Judge.
T1 The trial court plaintiff, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Protective Health Services of the Oklahoma State Department of Health (State) appeals a judgment in favor of the trial court defendant, Billings Fairchild Center, Inc. (BFC), finding that BFC had "answered sufficiently" the State's discovery requests. BFC counter-appeals the (trial court's preceding decision finding that the [486]*486district court had jurisdiction to hear State's petition.
BACKGROUND
2 The parties are generally in agreement as to the facts. State had cited BFC for a violation concerning "immediate jeopardy" of a resident. BFC requested an administrative hearing. In the administrative hearing case, BFC designated an expert witness.
13 When State indicated a desire to depose the expert, BFC's counsel advised that the expert would charge a fee at an hourly rate of $750.00. State then served interrogatories upon BFC seeking information as set out in 12 0.8. Supp.2005, § 3226(B)(B)(a)(8).1 This appeal involves three of the questions and responses. They are:
Interrogatory No. 1b: Please provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion formed by Arnal Moorad, M.D., the expert witness.
Answer: The Petitioner does not know the specific grounds for each of Dr. Moorad's anticipated opinions. You will have to ask Dr. Moorad.
Interrogatory No. lc: Please identify the qualifications of Arnal Moorad, M.D., the expert witness, including a listing of all publications authored by Dr. Moorad within the preceding ten (10) years.
Answer: Dr. Moorad is the Medical Director of Integris Jim Thorpe Hospital in Oklahoma City. He is Board Certified in internal medicine and rehabilitative medicine.2 The Petitioner does not know Dr. Moorad's publications.
Interrogatory No. le: Please provide a listing of any other cases in which Arnal Moorad, M.D., the expert witness, has tes[487]*487tified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years.
Answer: The Petitioner does not know.
T4 The State requested that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) compel interrogatory answers. The ALJ ruled that there was no authority for the ALJ to consider and rule upon a motion to compel answers to interrogatories. The ALJ agreed with BFC's argument that the Discovery Code did not apply in administrative proceedings and that discovery in those proceedings was governed by 75 0.8.2001, § 315 of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which does not mention interrogatories.3
T5 State did not appeal that ruling. Instead, State filed the present action in District Court as a Petition for Order to
Compel Discovery Requests.4 BFC challenged the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction arguing, as it did before the ALJ, that the APA and not the Discovery Code governed. The trial court ruled that it did have jurisdiction to hear State's petition and this ruling is the subject of BFC's counter-appeal.5
T6 After its initial rulings, the trial court then considered State's petition. The trial court ruled that BFC's answers were sufficient and that State's request for sanctions was not warranted. State appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
17 The trial court's ruling that it had subject matter jurisdiction, together with the attendant interpretation of statutes, con[488]*488stitutes a legal ruling. The appellate court has the plenary, independent, and nondefer-ential authority to reexamine a trial court's legal rulings. Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100 n. 1. Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling. Keizor v. Sand Springs Ry. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 98, ¶ 5, 861 P.2d 326, 328.
T8 The ruling that BFC's answers are sufficient is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. "A trial court is accorded broad discretion in deciding discovery matters, and its determination in such matters will not be disturbed absent a finding of abuse of discretion or that the decision is contrary to law." Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. v. Briscoe, 1995 OK CIV APP 156, ¶ 27, 911 P.2d 311, 318.
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
A. BFC's Counter-Appeal
T9 BFC's counter-appeal presents the question of the trial court's jurisdiction to hear State's petition and whether Interrogatories are available as a discovery tool in an administrative hearing of the nature of an "individual proceeding," 6 which is the issue involved here. Although Interrogatories are not specifically mentioned in Section 315 of the APA, nevertheless, Section 815(A) authorizes an agency to require the furnishing of information "as may be necessary and proper for the purposes of the proceeding." Therefore, the question is not whether the Discovery Code applies to agencies, rather the question is whether an agency has authority to make rules of procedure, and if so, what did the ageney promulgate as its rules.
$10 Therefore, this Court holds that a state agency, which is authorized to promulgate rules governing procedures for individual proceedings, has the authority under Section 815(A) and the APA generally to provide for Interrogatories as a discovery tool. The provision for use of Interrogatories may be accomplished by adoption of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, thereby making the Discovery Code provisions a part of the agency's procedures.7
111 The Legislature has given the State Board of Health the power to "[aldopt such rules, and standards as it deems necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Code." 63 0.9.2001, § 1-104(B)(2). A "rule" is defined by statute to include "any agency statement or group of related statements of general applicability and future effect that ... describes the procedure or practice requirements of the agency." 75 0.98.2001, § 250.3(15). As noted above, Section 315(A) contains a broad authorization to require furnishing of necessary and proper information.
112 The State Board of Health has promulgated rules of procedure for individual proceedings. A portion of the rules provides:
Order of procedure
(a) Generally that of civil proceedings. The order of procedure in hearings in all individual proceedings shall generally be governed by the Oklahoma Pleading Code and the Discovery Code. At the hearing, each party may make a brief opening statement; present witnesses, documents and exhibits on its behalf; cross-examine adverse witnesses; and make closing arguments. The rules of evidence shall be those specified by the APA. At the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, any party may reopen the case in chief, even after the adverse party has rested. Parties may stipulate to any lawful matter.
[489]*489(b) Matters not described.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KEITH RAPP, Vice Chief Judge.
T1 The trial court plaintiff, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Protective Health Services of the Oklahoma State Department of Health (State) appeals a judgment in favor of the trial court defendant, Billings Fairchild Center, Inc. (BFC), finding that BFC had "answered sufficiently" the State's discovery requests. BFC counter-appeals the (trial court's preceding decision finding that the [486]*486district court had jurisdiction to hear State's petition.
BACKGROUND
2 The parties are generally in agreement as to the facts. State had cited BFC for a violation concerning "immediate jeopardy" of a resident. BFC requested an administrative hearing. In the administrative hearing case, BFC designated an expert witness.
13 When State indicated a desire to depose the expert, BFC's counsel advised that the expert would charge a fee at an hourly rate of $750.00. State then served interrogatories upon BFC seeking information as set out in 12 0.8. Supp.2005, § 3226(B)(B)(a)(8).1 This appeal involves three of the questions and responses. They are:
Interrogatory No. 1b: Please provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion formed by Arnal Moorad, M.D., the expert witness.
Answer: The Petitioner does not know the specific grounds for each of Dr. Moorad's anticipated opinions. You will have to ask Dr. Moorad.
Interrogatory No. lc: Please identify the qualifications of Arnal Moorad, M.D., the expert witness, including a listing of all publications authored by Dr. Moorad within the preceding ten (10) years.
Answer: Dr. Moorad is the Medical Director of Integris Jim Thorpe Hospital in Oklahoma City. He is Board Certified in internal medicine and rehabilitative medicine.2 The Petitioner does not know Dr. Moorad's publications.
Interrogatory No. le: Please provide a listing of any other cases in which Arnal Moorad, M.D., the expert witness, has tes[487]*487tified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years.
Answer: The Petitioner does not know.
T4 The State requested that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) compel interrogatory answers. The ALJ ruled that there was no authority for the ALJ to consider and rule upon a motion to compel answers to interrogatories. The ALJ agreed with BFC's argument that the Discovery Code did not apply in administrative proceedings and that discovery in those proceedings was governed by 75 0.8.2001, § 315 of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which does not mention interrogatories.3
T5 State did not appeal that ruling. Instead, State filed the present action in District Court as a Petition for Order to
Compel Discovery Requests.4 BFC challenged the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction arguing, as it did before the ALJ, that the APA and not the Discovery Code governed. The trial court ruled that it did have jurisdiction to hear State's petition and this ruling is the subject of BFC's counter-appeal.5
T6 After its initial rulings, the trial court then considered State's petition. The trial court ruled that BFC's answers were sufficient and that State's request for sanctions was not warranted. State appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
17 The trial court's ruling that it had subject matter jurisdiction, together with the attendant interpretation of statutes, con[488]*488stitutes a legal ruling. The appellate court has the plenary, independent, and nondefer-ential authority to reexamine a trial court's legal rulings. Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corp., 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100 n. 1. Matters involving legislative intent present questions of law which are examined independently and without deference to the trial court's ruling. Keizor v. Sand Springs Ry. Co., 1993 OK CIV APP 98, ¶ 5, 861 P.2d 326, 328.
T8 The ruling that BFC's answers are sufficient is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. "A trial court is accorded broad discretion in deciding discovery matters, and its determination in such matters will not be disturbed absent a finding of abuse of discretion or that the decision is contrary to law." Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. v. Briscoe, 1995 OK CIV APP 156, ¶ 27, 911 P.2d 311, 318.
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
A. BFC's Counter-Appeal
T9 BFC's counter-appeal presents the question of the trial court's jurisdiction to hear State's petition and whether Interrogatories are available as a discovery tool in an administrative hearing of the nature of an "individual proceeding," 6 which is the issue involved here. Although Interrogatories are not specifically mentioned in Section 315 of the APA, nevertheless, Section 815(A) authorizes an agency to require the furnishing of information "as may be necessary and proper for the purposes of the proceeding." Therefore, the question is not whether the Discovery Code applies to agencies, rather the question is whether an agency has authority to make rules of procedure, and if so, what did the ageney promulgate as its rules.
$10 Therefore, this Court holds that a state agency, which is authorized to promulgate rules governing procedures for individual proceedings, has the authority under Section 815(A) and the APA generally to provide for Interrogatories as a discovery tool. The provision for use of Interrogatories may be accomplished by adoption of the Oklahoma Discovery Code, thereby making the Discovery Code provisions a part of the agency's procedures.7
111 The Legislature has given the State Board of Health the power to "[aldopt such rules, and standards as it deems necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Code." 63 0.9.2001, § 1-104(B)(2). A "rule" is defined by statute to include "any agency statement or group of related statements of general applicability and future effect that ... describes the procedure or practice requirements of the agency." 75 0.98.2001, § 250.3(15). As noted above, Section 315(A) contains a broad authorization to require furnishing of necessary and proper information.
112 The State Board of Health has promulgated rules of procedure for individual proceedings. A portion of the rules provides:
Order of procedure
(a) Generally that of civil proceedings. The order of procedure in hearings in all individual proceedings shall generally be governed by the Oklahoma Pleading Code and the Discovery Code. At the hearing, each party may make a brief opening statement; present witnesses, documents and exhibits on its behalf; cross-examine adverse witnesses; and make closing arguments. The rules of evidence shall be those specified by the APA. At the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, any party may reopen the case in chief, even after the adverse party has rested. Parties may stipulate to any lawful matter.
[489]*489(b) Matters not described. Any matter of practice or procedure not specified either by the APA or by these rules will be guided by practice or procedure followed in the district courts of this state.
Okla. Admin. Code, § 810:2-5-8 (1999).
T 13 Thus, the provisions of the Oklahoma Discovery Code in particular, and the Code of Civil Procedure generally, are part of the agency's rules. These statutory procedures are part of the Board of Health's procedures by virtue of its rulemaking as distinguished from applicability attributed to statutory language in the Discovery Code or in the Code of Civil Procedure.
[ 14 BFC's reliance on Oklahoma Human Rights Comm'n v. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc., 1975 OK 76, 536 P.2d 349, is misplaced. There, the use of Interrogatories by the agency occurred in the investigative phase of its inquiry into Wilson's employment practices, as distinguished from an Individual Proceeding. Such use was specifically permitted by statute. Thus, the case has no application to the question of whether Interrogatories may be utilized as a discovery tool in an Individual Proceeding conducted under an agency's adopted rules of procedure.
$15 BFC's contention that the en-foreement power of the district court is limited to disobedience of subpoenas has no merit. Section 315(C) of the APA refers to "any lawful ageney requirement for information." As this Court has held that Interrogatories constitute a lawful discovery tool in an individual proceeding when such tool is adopted as a component of the agency's procedures, the resort to district court for enforcement is likewise available to the agency. Consequently, the trial court did not err in its ruling that it had jurisdiction to hear State's petition.
B. State's Appeal
116 The challenged answers provided by BFC do not comport with the answering requirements of the Discovery Code.8 First, Interrogatories must be answered fully unless specific objection(s) is interposed. 12 0.9$.2001, § 3233(A). Here, BFC did not interpose an objection but responded with incomplete or evasive answers. Consequently, any objections BFC may have had to the subject Interrogatories is waived, unless excused for good cause which does not appear in the record here. 12 0.8.2001, § 8288(A).
117 Civil trials no longer are to be conducted in the dark. Discovery, consistent with recognized privileges, provides for the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before trial. Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1346 (5th Cir.1978). "The aim of these liberal discovery rules is to 'make a trial less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent." Id. Discovery by interrogatory requires candor in responding. Dollar v. Long Mfg., 561 F.2d 613, 616 (5th Cir.1977); West v. Cajun's Wharf, Inc., 1988 OK 92, ¶ 13, 770 P.2d 558, 562. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has granted a new trial due to a failure to provide complete information and supplementation of discovery requests. West, 1988 OK 92 at ¶ 21, 770 P.2d at 564. This Court perceives no legal distinction or policy difference justifying another conclusion simply because a matter involves an Individual Proceeding before an administrative agency which has rules and regulations allowing discovery by interrogatory. Therefore, this Court holds that when an agency has incorporated the Oklahoma Discovery Code into its procedures, the ageney also incorporates the underlying policies and purposes associated with the Oklahoma Discovery Code.
1 18 The Oklahoma Discovery Code closely tracks the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so federal decisions provide guidance. West, 1988 OK 92 at ¶ 13, 770 P.2d at 562. In Thomason v. Leiter, 52 F.R.D. 290 (M.D.Ala.1971), examination of questions propounded by defendants and plaintiffs' answers thereto reflected that in each instance plaintiffs' answers were incomplete or evasive, so filing of [490]*490further and unambiguous answers to such questions was ordered.
119 Here, State's interrogatories followed the language of the Discovery Code. All information available to BFC must be supplied, including information possessed by, or within knowledge of, BFC's attorney, investigators, experts, and agents or representatives. Wycoff v. Nichols, 32 F.R.D. 370 (W.D.Mo.1963). In Miller v. Doctor's General Hosp., 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D.Okla.1977), an Interrogatory asked the Defendant to divulge the illness for which a particular patient of Defendant was hospitalized and the symptoms of that patient's illness. Defendant objected to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it sought to elicit privileged information and medical information which Defendant was not qualified to give. The Court sustained a motion to compel additional answers, ruling:
This is an insufficient answer. Rule 88, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for the answering of interrogatories "separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer." In the interest of narrowing the issues and ascertaining the facts relevant thereto, the Court should not permit answers to interrogatories that are incomplete, inexplicit and unresponsive.... The answers to interrogatories must be responsive, full, complete and une-vasive. The answering party cannot limit his answers to matters within his own knowledge and ignore information immediately available to him or under his control.... If an appropriate interrogatory is propounded, the answering party will be required to give the information available to him, if any, through his attorney, investigators employed by him or on his behalf or other agents or representatives, whether personally known to the answering party or not.... If the answering party lacks necessary information to make a full, fair and specific answer to an interrogatory, it should so state under oath and should set forth in detail the efforts made to obtain the information.... Defendant's concluso-ry statement that Interrogatory No. 12 seeks medical information which Defendant is not qualified to give is not a sufficient response. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories should be sustained as it relates to Interrogatory No. 12 and Defendant is directed to further answer the same.
Miller, 76 F.R.D. at 139-40 (citations omitted).
120 This Court holds that the trial erred in its ruling that BFC had sufficiently responded to the subject Interrogatories.9 Therefore, this aspect of the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
{21 JUDGMENT FINDING TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT FINDING DISCOVERY RESPONSES SUFFICIENT REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
GABBARD, P.J., and REIF, J., concur.