Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group, 956 N.W.2d 692

Background

Eletech sued Jonathan Jones, Conveyance Consulting Group (CCG), and Jones Consulting alleging Jones, while Eletech VP, usurped corporate opportunities and diverted business to companies he formed; Eletech sought damages and injunctive relief.
Appellants answered and filed counterclaims; protracted discovery followed with Eletech serving interrogatories and document requests in January 2017.
Appellants’ original counsel moved to withdraw (Dec. 2018); the court granted withdrawal and continued a pending motion to compel to allow appellants to obtain new counsel.
The court granted Eletech’s motion to compel (Feb. 2019), ordered specific interrogatory and production responses within 10 days, and warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions including judgment or dismissal.
Appellants’ second (limited‑scope) counsel also withdrew after reporting noncooperation from Jones; appellants repeatedly failed to provide complete discovery despite warnings.
The court imposed sanctions (July 15, 2019): entered judgment for Eletech for $407,187.46, assessed joint and several liability as to entities, and dismissed appellants’ counterclaim with prejudice; appellants appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion in allowing first counsel to withdraw	Withdrawal was proper, appellants failed to timely object, and the court gave continuances to avoid prejudice	Counsel withdrew without adequate consideration of notice, prejudice, pending motion to compel, or time to secure new counsel	Appellants waived the objection by not raising it below; record shows notice and continuance; no abuse of discretion
Whether the court abused its discretion in granting Eletech’s motion to compel after counsel withdrew	Motion to compel was timely, specified the deficient discovery, and the court gave appellants an opportunity to comply	Eletech delayed filing the motion, lacked specificity, and the court did not identify actual discovery failures	Appellants waived these arguments by not raising them below; court’s order identified specific items and gave time to comply; no abuse
Whether the court abused its discretion in allowing second counsel (limited counsel) to withdraw	Withdrawal was justified due to client noncooperation; counsel gave notice and sought leave under the rules	Withdrawal was improper given pending sanctions and potential prejudice	Appellants did not preserve the argument; counsel gave notice and explained noncooperation; withdrawal was not erroneous
Whether dismissal of appellants’ counterclaim and entry of judgment as sanctions was an abuse of discretion	Sanctions were appropriate given prolonged, willful noncompliance and repeated warnings; lesser sanctions were considered	Court failed to find willfulness/bad faith, failed to find actual noncompliance, lacked adequate notice, and did not consider lesser sanctions	Court did not abuse its discretion: lengthy delays, multiple warnings, limited counsel issues, and recalcitrant conduct supported severe sanctions including dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Eddy v. Builders Supply Co., 304 Neb. 804, 937 N.W.2d 198 (Neb. 2020) (sanctions under discovery rule §6‑337 serve to punish and deter discovery abuse)
Hill v. Tevogt, 293 Neb. 429, 879 N.W.2d 369 (Neb. 2016) (factors for assessing discovery sanctions include prejudice, importance of evidence, prior history, and willfulness)
Ecker v. E & A Consulting Group, 302 Neb. 578, 924 N.W.2d 671 (Neb. 2019) (rules on withdrawal and waiver of objections)
State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927, 799 N.W.2d 693 (Neb. 2011) (standard for waiver when objections are not timely raised)
Stanko v. Chaloupka, 239 Neb. 101, 474 N.W.2d 470 (Neb. 1991) (affirming dismissal as appropriate sanction for recalcitrant parties)
First Express Servs. Group v. Easter, 286 Neb. 912, 840 N.W.2d 465 (Neb. 2013) (appellate courts do not consider issues raised for first time on appeal)