Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868

In December 2008 Putnam was injured in a car accident involving Keri Scherbring; suit was filed in April 2012 for damages including medical expenses.
A scheduling/progression order set expert disclosure and discovery deadlines; those deadlines were extended multiple times and the trial was continued three times at Putnam’s request or stipulation.
Putnam missed initial expert disclosure deadlines, later sought to add experts and reopen discovery roughly 1–3 years after filing; the district court denied motions to reopen discovery and enforced progression deadlines.
Shortly before trial Putnam disclosed a supplemental expert report (dated March 30, 2015) that opined new injuries and stated numerous medical bills were fair, reasonable, and necessary; disclosure occurred 22 days before trial and after discovery closed.
The district court, exercising its inherent authority to enforce progression orders, excluded the untimely expert opinions as to most medical bills, which prevented foundation for admitting those bills; jury returned verdict for defendants.
The Court of Appeals reversed on grounds the district court failed to apply Norquay sanction factors; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Putnam's Argument	Scherbring's Argument	Held
Whether Norquay discovery‑sanction factors were required before excluding untimely expert opinions	Norquick (Putnam) said exclusion was a sanction and Norquay factors control	Scherbring said court enforced progression order via inherent power, not a Rule 37 sanction	Court held Norquay did not apply because court acted under inherent authority to enforce progression order
Whether district court abused discretion excluding untimely expert opinion and most medical bills	Exclusion was an abuse given counsel illness and late disclosures; prejudice could be cured	Exclusion was proper to prevent unfair surprise and to enforce progression deadlines after multiple continuances	Court held no abuse of discretion: exclusion reasonable to enforce progression and preserve orderly trial
Whether exclusion of expert opinion required separate analysis from exclusion of medical bills	Putnam argued medical bills could be admitted regardless	Scherbring argued bills required expert foundation; without opinion bills inadmissible	Court held admissibility of bills depended on expert foundation; exclusion of opinion warranted exclusion of bills
Proper remedy if exclusion was erroneous	Putnam sought new trial	Scherbring opposed reversal	Court reversed Court of Appeals and directed affirmance of district court judgment; no new trial granted

Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad, 225 Neb. 527, 407 N.W.2d 146 (1987) (factors for imposing discovery sanctions under court rules)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148, 871 N.W.2d 776 (2015) (discovery-control decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Tyler v. Heywood, 258 Neb. 901, 607 N.W.2d 186 (2000) (appellate review of a court’s exercise of inherent power is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Chauncey, 295 Neb. 453, 890 N.W.2d 453 (2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363, 836 N.W.2d 790 (2013) (trial court’s broad discretion over discovery and evidentiary rulings)
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131, 816 N.W.2d 742 (2012) (plaintiff entitled to recover reasonable value of medical care; foundation required for admission of medical bills)