If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion made pursuant to Rule 26(c).
If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.
In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
The failure to act described in this subdivision may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by Rule 26(c).
S.c. R. Civ. P. 37
This Rule 37 is the language of the Federal Rule with minor changes. The Federal Rule provides that a motion to compel discovery or for sanctions may be brought either in the court where the action is pending or in the place where the discovery or deposition is taken. Thus, if a deposition were being taken in another state or Federal district, the parties do not have to adjourn the deposition and return to the court where the action is pending for assistance. However, this Rule 37 deletes that provision with reference to the deposition of a party. Such motion may be brought only in the court where the action is pending. A motion to compel a witness deponent (not a party) to proceed, however, may be brought in the circuit court in the place where the deposition is being taken, usually the county of residence of the deponent.
Note to 2011 Amendment:
The amendments to Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37 and 45 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure concerning electronic discovery are substantially similar to the corresponding provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules concerning electronic discovery are intended to provide a practical, efficient and cost-effective method to assure reasonable discovery. Pursuit of electronic discovery must relate to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings and should serve as a means for facilitating a just and cost-effective resolution of disputes.