Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868

Background

In April 2012 Putnam sued the Scherbrings for injuries and medical expenses from a December 2008 automobile collision; the Scherbrings admitted negligence but disputed injury and damages.
The district court entered progression/scheduling orders (expert disclosures, discovery, and trial dates); the court and parties agreed multiple continuances, and the trial date was moved three times.
Putnam missed initial expert-designation deadlines, later sought to add experts and reopen limited discovery months after the deadlines and well after the case progression target period; the court denied those motions.
Putnam obtained a supplemental expert report (dated March 30, 2015) opining that his medical bills (including a traumatic brain injury diagnosis) were reasonable and necessary, but disclosed it to defendants only 22 days before the June 2015 trial.
The district court, exercising its inherent authority to enforce its progression order, excluded the untimely expert opinion and, for lack of foundation, most medical bills; the jury returned a defense verdict.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed (applying factors from Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad); the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Norquay discovery‑sanction factors governed exclusion of untimely disclosures	Putnam argued exclusion was an improper discovery sanction and Norquay factors should apply	Scherbring argued the court enforced its progression order using inherent power, so Norquay did not apply	Held: Norquay factors did not apply; court acted under inherent authority to enforce progression orders
Whether district court abused discretion in excluding untimely expert opinion	Putnam argued illness/injury of counsel and prior continuances justified late disclosure and exclusion was abuse	Scherbring argued parties and court had accommodated delays and further late disclosure would prejudice and delay trial	Held: No abuse of discretion; exclusion was reasonable to enforce scheduling and preserve orderly trial
Admissibility of medical bills dependent on expert foundation	Putnam argued bills themselves could be admitted or foundation could be supplied at trial	Scherbring argued majority of bills lacked expert foundation because expert opinion was excluded	Held: Because expert opinion was excluded as untimely, most medical bills properly excluded for lack of foundation
Whether district court needed to consider lesser remedies before exclusion	Putnam argued sanctions analysis (Norquay) requires consideration of alternatives	Scherbring argued inherent-power enforcement need not follow Norquay sanction framework	Held: Court reasonably enforced progression order without applying Norquay; broad inherent power allows such enforcement

Key Cases Cited

Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad, 225 Neb. 527, 407 N.W.2d 146 (Neb. 1987) (factors for imposing discovery sanctions under court rules)
State v. Chauncey, 295 Neb. 453, 890 N.W.2d 453 (Neb. 2017) (abuse of discretion standard)
Tyler v. Heywood, 258 Neb. 901, 607 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 2000) (appellate review of exercise of inherent power is for abuse of discretion)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148, 871 N.W.2d 776 (Neb. 2015) (discovery control lies within trial court discretion)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013) (trial court’s broad discretion over trial conduct and evidentiary rulings)
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131, 816 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2012) (plaintiff must prove reasonable value of medical care to recover medical expenses)
In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D., 289 Neb. 763, 857 N.W.2d 323 (Neb. 2015) (recognition of inherent judicial power to administer justice)