Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group, 308 Neb. 733

Eletech sued Jonathan Jones, Conveyance Consulting Group, Inc. (CCG), and Jones Consulting for alleged self‑dealing and usurpation of corporate opportunities; appellants answered and filed counterclaims.
Eletech served written discovery in January 2017; appellants’ initial responses were served in March 2017 but Eletech later moved to compel incomplete/evasive answers in November 2018.
Appellants’ first counsel moved to withdraw (Dec. 2018); the court allowed withdrawal and continued the motion to compel to permit appellants to obtain new counsel.
Appellants repeatedly missed hearings, failed to provide full supplemental responses after a February 2019 order compelling specified interrogatories and productions, and received multiple warnings that sanctions could include liability and dismissal.
Second counsel (limited representation) withdrew in July 2019 after breakdowns in communication and a conditional replacement counsel withdrew when appellants failed to cooperate.
The court entered discovery sanctions on July 15, 2019: judgment for Eletech for $407,187.46, joint and several allocations among defendants, and dismissal with prejudice of appellants’ counterclaims. Appellants appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eletech)	Defendant's Argument (Appellants)	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion allowing first counsel to withdraw	Withdrawal was proper; notice and continuances protected appellants	Court failed to consider prejudice, pending motion to compel, and adequate notice	Waived by appellants for failure to object below; withdrawal did not abuse discretion
Whether granting motion to compel after counsel withdrawal was improper	Motion was timely, specified deficiencies, and court gave notice and 10 days to comply	Eletech waited too long and lacked specificity; compulsion after withdrawal was unfair	Appellants waived these arguments; the order specifically identified discovery and was not an abuse
Whether court erred permitting second counsel to withdraw	Gnuse validly withdrew for good cause after lack of client cooperation and provided notice	Withdrawal ignored pending sanctions and prejudiced appellants	Appellants failed to raise these objections below; withdrawal was permitted and not erroneous
Whether dismissal/judgment as sanctions under Neb. Ct. R. Disc. §6‑337 was excessive	Appellants were recalcitrant, ignored orders and warnings over months; dismissal appropriate to deter and remedy prejudice	Court imposed dismissal without findings of willfulness/bad faith, without proper notice, and without considering lesser sanctions	Trial court did not abuse discretion—record showed repeated failures, warnings, and prejudice; sanctions upheld

Yeransian v. Willkie Farr, 305 Neb. 693, 942 N.W.2d 226 (addresses preservation/waiver of appellate issues)
Eddy v. Builders Supply Co., 304 Neb. 804, 937 N.W.2d 198 (explains purposes and scope of sanctions under Neb. Ct. R. Disc. § 6‑337)
Ecker v. E & A Consulting Group, 302 Neb. 578, 924 N.W.2d 671 (procedure concerning withdrawal and waiver principles)
First Express Servs. Group v. Easter, 286 Neb. 912, 840 N.W.2d 465 (preservation of issues and appellate review limits)
Hill v. Tevogt, 293 Neb. 429, 879 N.W.2d 369 (factors for assessing discovery sanctions)
Stanko v. Chaloupka, 239 Neb. 101, 474 N.W.2d 470 (dismissal as sanction for recalcitrant party)