and it would be unjust to impose a sanction. GBP’s motion is therefore denied. B. Motion to Compel A party may “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things....” Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “For good cause, the coui’t may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. The scope of relevancy under Rule 26 is broad. “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.; see also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978) (<HOLDING>). A party may seek an order to compel discovery
holding that attorneys testimony was not relevant to any issues contained in the appellants pleadings and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the attorneys testimony could not be gained from any other witness or source holding that relevant information has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matter sic that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence holding that sovereign immunity issues may be raised sua sponte as they bear on subject matter jurisdiction recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim