Washington v. Board of Regents of NMSU
Background
- Miles Washington, a former NMSU football player, sued (strict liability and negligence) after an injury causing quadriplegia.
- The district court dismissed Washington’s strict liability claim on a Rule 1-012(B)(6) theory (college football not an abnormally/abnormally dangerous activity) and allowed negligence claims to proceed.
- Discovery later broke down after Washington’s local counsel became ill and unresponsive; defendants moved to dismiss for discovery misconduct and sought costs.
- At a hearing the parties agreed to dismiss the remaining negligence claim; the district court sua sponte dismissed the entire action with prejudice as a sanction for discovery misconduct, including re-dismissing the already-dismissed strict liability claim, finding a willful failure to attend depositions and other discovery noncompliance.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals majority affirmed the dismissal primarily because Washington’s appellate briefing failed to state the standard of review or cite controlling authority; the court also found the district court’s sanction was within its discretion. A dissent would have reversed the sanction as excessive and remanded the Rule 1-012(B)(6) dismissal for clearer application of the Restatement § 520 factors.
Issues
| Issue | Washington's Argument | NCAA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate discovery sanction | Dismissal was improper because failures flowed from local counsel’s illness/unavailability and the sanction was overbroad (especially re: a claim already dismissed) | Sanction was proper given willful discovery noncompliance (missed depositions, failure to respond) | Majority: Affirmed dismissal as within district court discretion; dissent: would reverse as disproportionate and untailored |
| Whether the failure to appear at deposition was "willful" | The absence was excused by local counsel’s illness/unreachability; not willful | Failures were conscious/intentional and the court reasonably concluded willfulness | Majority: Evidence supports trial court’s willfulness finding; sanction within range |
| Whether appellate briefing sufficed to permit review | Argued merits but did not state standard of review or cite controlling authority | N/A (relied on record and trial court discretion) | Court: Briefing deficient under Rule 12-318(A)(4); failure to state standard and cite authority forfeits issues; affirmed on that basis |
| Validity of district court’s earlier Rule 1-012(B)(6) dismissal of strict liability (abnormally dangerous test) | Contest that district court misapplied law and failed to analyze the six Restatement § 520 factors | District court previously ruled college football not abnormally dangerous | Majority: Did not reach merits (affirmed on procedural ground); Dissent: Would remand for application of the proper Restatement § 520 analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- United Nuclear Corp. v. Gen. Atomic Co., 629 P.2d 231 (N.M. 1980) (dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction; outlines willfulness test and sanctions framework)
- Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 309 P.3d 53 (N.M. 2013) (court will not address inadequately briefed issues; avoids developing parties’ arguments)
- Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Samson, 35 P.3d 972 (N.M. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery sanctions and closer review when dismissal results)
- Lowery v. Atterbury, 823 P.2d 313 (N.M. 1992) (standard of review for dismissal sanctions is abuse of discretion)
- Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M. v. Diamond D Constr. Co., 33 P.3d 651 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (substantial-evidence standard supports willfulness findings)
- Lujan v. City of Albuquerque, 75 P.3d 423 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (dismissal reserved for extreme cases; must weigh against trial-on-merits principle)
- Chavez v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Curry Cnty., 31 P.3d 1027 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (dismissal for discovery violations only for flagrant bad faith or callous disregard)
- Apodaca v. AAA Gas Co., 73 P.3d 215 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (New Mexico adopts Restatement § 520 six-factor test for abnormally dangerous activities)
- Gabaldon v. Erisa Mortg. Co., 990 P.2d 197 (N.M. 1999) (discusses inherently dangerous test separate from abnormally dangerous framework)