Darold M. Brown v. Tana J. Brown, n/k/a Tana J. Bennett, 385 P.3d 321

Darold M. Brown and his wife divorced by a stipulated decree entered six days after the complaint; wife later moved to vacate or modify, alleging premature entry and changed circumstances.
After scheduling conference (Oct. 28, 2015), the court entered a Scheduling Order requiring exchange of witness lists and exhibits by November 13, 2015 (agreed to by counsel).
Brown failed to exchange witness and exhibit lists by the deadline; Ms. Brown moved for sanctions seeking to prohibit Brown from offering witnesses/exhibits.
The district court denied relief based on an informal agreement claim but granted the later motion, imposing the sanction prohibiting Brown from presenting witnesses or exhibits at trial for violating the Scheduling Order.
Trial proceeded (Brown testified but called no other witnesses and offered no exhibits); court issued custody, visitation, and property division orders; Brown appealed the sanctions ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning Brown for failing to provide witness/exhibit lists	Brown: Sanctions improper because no motion to compel under W.R.C.P. 37 was filed; Rule 37 sanctions require a prior compel order	Ms. Brown: Sanctions proper because Brown violated the court-approved Scheduling Order; Rule 16(f) authorizes sanctions including those in Rule 37(b) for scheduling-order violations	Court: No abuse of discretion. Sanctions were authorized under Rule 16(f) for violating the Scheduling Order; a motion to compel was not required
Whether the sanction was unreasonable given the short (15-day) compliance window	Brown: The schedule was unreasonably fast; sanction prevented consideration of evidence relevant to children’s best interests	Ms. Brown: Parties agreed to the schedule at the hearing; Brown agreed and then failed to comply	Court: Brown agreed to the schedule; appellate review declined where issues not raised below and no justification to depart from the rule; sanction not an abuse of discretion
Whether the appeal was frivolous warranting appellant-fee award	Brown: (No argument that appeal was frivolous)	Ms. Brown: Appeal lacks reasonable cause; seek attorney fees under W.R.A.P. 10.05	Court: Declined fee award; appeal not so lacking in merit to merit sanctions given discretionary ruling challenged

In re Guardianship of Bratton, 330 P.3d 248 (Wyo. 2014) (district courts have broad discretion to impose sanctions)
Goforth v. Fifield, 352 P.3d 242 (Wyo. 2015) (appellate review of sanctions is for abuse of discretion)
Kordus v. Montes, 337 P.3d 1138 (Wyo. 2014) (issues generally not reviewed if raised first on appeal)
In re Lankford, 301 P.3d 1092 (Wyo. 2013) (same)
Jones v. State, 132 P.3d 162 (Wyo. 2006) (same)
Hoffman v. Hoffman, 91 P.3d 922 (Wyo. 2004) (appellate sanctions under procedural rule are rare)