Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868

In April 2012 Putnam sued the Scherbrings for injuries from a December 2008 automobile collision; the Scherbrings admitted negligence but disputed causation/extent of injuries and damages.
The district court adopted progression/scheduling orders setting expert-disclosure and discovery deadlines; Putnam missed the initial expert deadline and the parties agreed to amended scheduling and multiple continuances, moving trial repeatedly.
Putnam's original counsel was hospitalized and successor counsel was injured; the court granted three continuances but ultimately set a firm trial date after significant delay beyond Nebraska’s case-progression targets.
Months after discovery closed and shortly before trial, Putnam disclosed a supplemental expert report asserting traumatic brain injury and that numerous medical bills were reasonable and necessary; defendants had no opportunity for follow-up discovery or deposition.
The district court, exercising its inherent authority to enforce progression orders, excluded the untimely expert opinion and, because the expert foundation was excluded, excluded most medical bills; the jury returned a verdict for the Scherbrings.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, applying Norquay (discovery-sanction) factors; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the district court’s exclusion as a proper exercise of inherent power.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Norquay discovery-sanction factors governed exclusion of late expert opinions	Putnam: exclusion was an abuse; Norquay factors should have been applied before preclusion	Scherbring: court enforced progression order via inherent power, not a §6-337 sanction, so Norquay did not apply	Held: Norquay did not apply; district court acted under inherent authority to enforce progression orders
Whether district court abused discretion by excluding untimely expert opinion disclosed after discovery closed	Putnam: exclusion was unreasonable given counsel illness/injury and prior accommodations	Scherbring: repeated continuances had already accommodated delay; further late disclosure would prejudice and delay trial	Held: No abuse of discretion; exclusion was reasonable and within trial court’s broad discretion
Whether exclusion of expert opinion justified excluding related medical bills	Putnam: bills should be admissible or foundation could be supplied otherwise	Scherbring: admissibility of bills depended on expert foundation that was excluded	Held: Exclusion of bills was proper because foundation expert testimony was excluded
Standard for reviewing enforcement of progression orders and use of inherent power	Putnam: applied Norquay abuse-of-discovery-sanction analysis	Scherbring: inherent-power enforcement reviewed for abuse of discretion	Held: Inherent-power use reviewed for abuse of discretion; no abuse found

Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad, 225 Neb. 527 (setting factors for discovery sanctions under court rules)
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 (plaintiff may recover reasonable medical expenses with proper foundation)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363 (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148 (discovery-control discretionary review)
In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D., 289 Neb. 763 (courts’ inherent authority for administration of justice)
State v. Chauncey, 295 Neb. 453 (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Tyler v. Heywood, 258 Neb. 901 (appellate review of inherent-power exercise is abuse-of-discretion standard)