Perius v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co., 813 N.W.2d 580

Accident on Oct 8, 2004 involving uninsured driver; Perius insured by Nodak for no-fault and UM benefits; Nodak paid $1,020.75 in no-fault benefits; Post-2004 medical treatment contested as related to accident; Perius sued Kessler and Nodak in 2007; Nodak moved for summary judgment in 2009 arguing post-2004 treatment was pre-existing; On remand (2011 trial), Nodak moved to exclude Dr. Blowers as expert for insufficient disclosures; district court granted motion in limine excluding Dr. Blowers’ expert testimony but allowed him as a fact witness; jury verdict for Nodak; majority affirmed (no new trial) proceeding on disclosure sanctions; concurrence discusses discovery discipline and Rule 37.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly sanctioned Perius by excluding Dr. Blowers as an expert	Perius complied with Rule 26 disclosures	Dr. Blowers was not properly disclosed and testimony beyond disclosures	Yes; exclusion upheld by court
Whether excluding the entire medical-bill amount was erroneously decided	Evidence of full medical charges should have been admitted	Court acted within discretion based on windfall concern	Not reached/affirmed on first issue; second issue unnecessary

Wolf v. Estate of Seright, 1997 ND 240 (ND 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions in discovery)
Dewitz by Nuestel v. Emery, 508 N.W.2d 334 (ND 1993) (sanctions for discovery violations; Rule 37 available)
Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 507 N.W.2d 527 (ND 1993) (sanctions for discovery abuses; balancing factors)
Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 544 N.W.2d 122 (ND 1996) (inherent power sanctions considerations)
Benedict v. St. Luke’s Hospitals, 365 N.W.2d 499 (ND 1985) (inherent power sanctions framework)
Clark v. Clark, 721 N.W.2d 6 (ND 2006) (continuance preferred over exclusion where possible)
Dewitz v. Emery, 508 N.W.2d 334 (ND 1993) (see above)