James Dale Schmidt v. Ashley Denise Eft, 16-0238

James Schmidt and Ashley Eft entered an initial custody stipulation (2012) giving Ashley physical care and joint legal custody; later modifications left Ashley with physical care and changed parenting time.
James filed a second modification petition; trial was set for November 16, 2015 under Polk County’s uniform trial scheduling order, which required exchanging witness and exhibit lists ten days before trial and warned sanctions for noncompliance.
The deadline for lists was November 6, 2015; James provided his witness and exhibit lists on November 9 (and amended on November 13). Ashley moved to strike his trial exhibits/witnesses and sought sanctions.
At trial the court excluded all of James’s witnesses except James and Ashley for failing to comply with the scheduling order; exhibits were allowed if proper foundation was laid. The court denied James’s modification petition on the merits.
James appealed only the sanctions ruling. The district court found (post-trial) that excluded witnesses would not have cured defects in James’s own testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schmidt)	Defendant's Argument (Eft)	Held
Whether exclusion of most lay witnesses for late disclosure was an abuse of discretion	Exclusion was excessive, deprived court of child-best-interest evidence; court lacked knowledge of what witnesses would say	Scheduling order valid; late disclosure prejudiced Eft; sanction within court’s discretion and less severe options available were considered	Affirmed: exclusion did not constitute abuse of discretion; sanction appropriate
Whether James was prejudiced by exclusion	Exclusion prevented presentation of supporting testimony	James’s own testimony failed to prove required elements; lay testimony would not have cured defects	No prejudice shown; exclusion was harmless as to outcome
Whether district court improperly applied scheduling order / sanctions standards	Sanctions were not narrowly tailored and undermined child’s interests	Court followed order, has inherent power to manage pretrial, considered alternatives; order warned of sanctions	Court’s exercise of discretion was reasonable and supported by record
Whether appellate fees should be awarded to Eft	Not argued on appeal	Seeks fees because she defended trial outcome successfully	$2,000 awarded in appellate attorney fees to Eft

Barnhill v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 765 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 2009) (standard for reviewing district court sanctions decisions)
Schettler v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 509 N.W.2d 459 (Iowa 1993) (abuse of discretion defined)
Fry v. Blauvelt, 818 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 2012) (importance of scheduling orders and sanctions to manage pretrial conduct)
Rowen v. Le Mars Mut. Ins. Co. of Iowa, 282 N.W.2d 639 (Iowa 1979) (inherent power of district courts to enforce pretrial orders)
Klein v. Chicago Cent. & Pacific R. Co., 596 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 1999) (exclusion not to be imposed lightly; other sanctions available)
Graber v. City of Ankeny, 616 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 2000) (reversal required unless record shows lack of prejudice)
Lawson v. Kurtzhals, 729 N.W.2d 251 (Iowa 2010) (court must consider sanction options; reasonableness review)
Nizzi v. Laverty Springs, Inc., 143 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 1966) (failure to make offer of proof precludes review of excluded testimony)
In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees)
In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738 (Iowa 1993) (same; framework for fee awards)
In re Marriage of Bolick, 539 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 1995) (consideration of success defending trial court in awarding appellate fees)