Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery in North Dakota

Background

“The district court has a wide spectrum of sanctions for discovery violations, including striking pleadings and entry of default judgment against the disobedient party.” (See Nelson v. Nelson (2019) 932 N.W.2d 386, 391.)

“Although the law favors resolution of disputes on the merits, that consideration must be balanced against the need to deter discovery abuses, promote efficient litigation, and protect the interests of all litigants.” (See id.)

“Therefore, the most severe sanctions must be available, not only to penalize those whose conduct is deemed to warrant those sanctions, but also to deter those who might be tempted to abuse the discovery process.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Rule 37(b)(2) provides the trial court with a broad spectrum of available sanctions for discovery violations, and any sanctions imposed will not be set aside on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion.” (See Baer v. Bauch (1999) 599 N.W.2d 306, 308.)

“Rule 37(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., allows a court to impose sanctions on a party for failing to comply with a discovery order, stating: If a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent–or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)–fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.” (See Nelson v. Nelson (2019) 932 N.W.2d 386, 392.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The district court has broad discretion to impose appropriate sanctions for discovery abuses, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal unless the court abused its discretion.” (See Nelson v. Nelson (2019) 932 N.W.2d 386, 391.)

“A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, it misinterprets or misapplies the law, or when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination.” (See id.)

“The appellant who is contesting the district court’s choice of a sanction has the burden of showing the abuse of discretion, and that burden is met only when it is clear that no reasonable person would agree with the trial court’s assessment of what sanctions are appropriate.” (See id.)

“This Court has said even when a party believes the district court’s discovery order is erroneous, the party must comply as long as it remains in force.” (See id.)

“We have cautioned that sanctions for discovery violations should be tailored to the severity of the misconduct.” (See Baer v. Bauch (1999) 599 N.W.2d 306, 308.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “dismissal of an action or entry of a default judgment as a sanction for discovery abuse should be imposed only if there is a deliberate or bad faith non-compliance which constitutes a flagrant abuse of or disregard for the discovery rules.” (See Nelson v. Nelson (2019) 932 N.W.2d 386, 392.)

It is also well settled that “the court has inherent authority to award attorney’s fees as a sanction for a litigant’s misconduct, and sanctions based on this power will only be reversed on appeal if the court abused its discretion.” (See id.)