Wunsch v. Pickering, 249 P.3d 717

Before their 2004 divorce, Wunsch and Pickering operated a financial services business and executed a settlement agreement dividing future fees; the agreement provided a mutual fee-splitting rule for joint accounts and a replacement-account mechanism after accounts are moved.
An Administrator was appointed to perform the accounting required by the settlement; the dispute centered on whether certain inactive or replaced accounts generated future fees owed to Pickering.
The Administrator listed about 165 joint accounts; about 50 were deemed inactive, raising questions whether those accounts were replaced and thus payable to Pickering.
Wunsch sought clarification in 2009 on amounts owed for inactive accounts; discovery demanded documents relating to inactive accounts, rep IDs, commission statements, and tax forms.
The district court ordered discovery, but Wunsch failed to timely provide documents; sanctions culminated in a default judgment on liability and a damages hearing where Pickering sought approximately $195,000 based on the Administrator’s projections.
The district court ultimately awarded damages to Pickering, and Wunsch appealed the discovery order and the damages proceedings (not the default entry).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion in compelling production of documents?	Wunsch contends the requests were irrelevant or not in his control.	Pickering contends the documents are relevant to whether accounts were replaced.	No abuse; documents were relevant and within Wunsch's control.
Did the default sanction improperly restrict Wunsch at the damages hearing?	Default should not bar Wunsch from presenting damages evidence.	Damages proceeding are tied to the default finding of liability.	No error; the damages proceeding was adjudicated with the evidentiary restrictions appropriately applied.
Was the damages evidence sufficient to support the district court’s award?	There was insufficient proof of replacement for the 50 inactive accounts.	Once default established replacement, evidence of damages could rely on the Administrator’s projected amounts.	Yes; damages supported by the projected-replacement framework after default.

Spitzer v. Spitzer, 777 P.2d 587 (Wyo. 1989) (distinguishes liability vs. damages when default is entered; right to participate in damages proceedings)
McGarvin-Moberly Construction Co. v. Welden, 897 P.2d 1310 (Wyo. 1995) (defaulting defendant can present evidence in mitigation of damages)
Examination Mgmt. Servs. v. Kirschbaum, 927 P.2d 686 (Wyo. 1996) (standards for reviewing damages findings after default/injunction-type sanctions)
Inskeep v. Inskeep, 752 P.2d 434 (Wyo. 1988) (review of district court decisions on motion to compel production; abuse of discretion standard)
Lieberman v. Mossbrook, 208 P.3d 1296 (Wyo. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review in discovery matters; relevance standard)
Cramer v. Powder River Coal, LLC, 204 P.3d 974 (Wyo. 2009) (evidentiary rulings; abuse-of-discretion standard in exclusion/inclusion of evidence)