Putnam v. Scherbring, 902 N.W.2d 140

In April 2012 Putnam sued the Scherbrings for injuries and medical expenses from a December 2008 car crash; defendants admitted negligence but disputed causation and damages.
The court entered progression/scheduling orders setting expert-disclosure and ready-for-trial deadlines; the trial date was continued multiple times (originally July 2014; final date June 24, 2015).
Putnam missed expert-disclosure deadlines, sought continuances due to counsel illness/injury, and moved to reopen discovery roughly 3 years after filing; the court granted several continuances but ultimately denied reopening discovery.
Shortly before trial (22 days prior), Putnam disclosed a supplemental expert report asserting a traumatic brain injury and opining that numerous medical bills were reasonable and necessary; discovery was closed so defendants could not depose the expert.
The district court (exercising inherent authority to enforce its progression order) excluded the untimely expert opinion and most medical bills for lack of foundation; the jury returned verdict for defendants.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed (applying Norquay factors for discovery sanctions); the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the district court.

Issue	Putnam's Argument	Scherbrings' Argument	Held
Whether Norquay discovery‑sanction factors governed exclusion of untimely expert opinion and medical bills	Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; Norquay factors should apply before preclusion	Court was enforcing progression order via inherent authority, not imposing a §6‑337 sanction, so Norquay inapplicable	Norquay did not apply; district court enforced progression order under inherent power
Whether district court abused discretion by excluding evidence disclosed after discovery closed and long after deadlines	Exclusion was disproportionate given counsel illness/late disclosure and trial accommodations	Repeated continuances had already been granted; further delay would frustrate progression standards	No abuse of discretion; exclusion was reasonable to enforce scheduling and preserve orderly trial
Whether medical bills required expert foundation to be admissible without stipulation	Putnam: bills are admissible by providers or plaintiff testimony	Scherbrings: fairness/reasonableness required expert opinion not timely disclosed	Expert opinion was necessary to establish fairness/reasonableness; exclusion of bills lacking foundation was proper
Proper remedy for untimely disclosure (new trial vs. enforcement)	New trial warranted by prejudicial exclusion	Enforcement of progression order justified; exclusion within court’s discretion	Exclusion affirmed; judgment for defendants stands

Norquay v. Union Pacific R.R., 225 Neb. 527 (analysis of preclusion as a discovery sanction under the discovery rules)
State v. Chauncey, 295 Neb. 453 (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148 (discovery control is within judicial discretion)
Tyler v. Heywood, 258 Neb. 901 (appellate review of inherent power is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363 (trial court’s broad discretion over discovery and evidence)
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 (medical expenses require proof of reasonable value and necessity)