Interest of I.D.
2012 ND 49
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Perius was involved in an October 8, 2004 motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver and sought no-fault and uninsured motorist benefits from Nodak.
- Nodak paid some no-fault benefits but denied post-2004 treatment as related to the accident after an independent medical examination.
- Perius sued Kessler and Nodak in 2007; Nodak asserted a pre-existing condition and questioned causation; Nodak also asserted a cross-claim against Kessler.
- Nodak challenged Perius’s disclosure of expert witnesses under N.D.R.Civ.P. 26, including Dr. Blowers, leading to discovery disputes.
- The district court granted Nodak’s summary judgment motion in 2009; this Court reversed and remanded, noting disputed material facts but not endorsing the sufficiency of disclosures.
- On remand, Nodak sought to exclude Dr. Blowers as an expert; the trial court granted in limine exclusion of Blowers’ expert opinions, permitting him only as a fact witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of Dr. Blowers’ expert testimony was proper sanctions for discovery violations | Perius contends disclosures were adequate under Rule 26 | Nodak argues failure to sufficiently disclose and supplement under Rule 26(e) justifies exclusion | Yes; exclusion affirmed as a proper discovery sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dewitz by Nuestel v. Emery, 508 N.W.2d 334 (N.D. 1993) (sanctions for discovery violations; relevance to Rule 37 and evasive answers)
- Wolf v. Estate of Seright, 1997 ND 240 (N.D. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery sanctions; Rule 26(e) context)
- Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 507 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 1993) (sanctions tailored to misconduct; inherent power context)
- Perius v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 ND 80 (N.D. 2010) (reversal on summary judgment; discovery-related concerns highlighted)
- Clark v. Clark, N.W.2d 6 (N.D. 2006) (continuance preferred over exclusion; discovery remedies)
- Thibeault v. Square D Co., 960 F.2d 239 (1st Cir. 1992) (context on sanctions and Rule 37 interplay)
- Benedict v. St. Luke’s Hospitals, 365 N.W.2d 499 (N.D. 1985) (recognition of inherent power sanctions)