IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2013 WY 144

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2013

November 21, 2013

RICHARD REYNOLDS,

Appellant

(Plaintiff),

v.

CHRISTOPHER BONAR,

Appellee

(Defendant).

S-13-0100

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County

The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant:

Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, WY.

Representing Appellee:

Sean W. Scoggin of McKellar, Tiedeken & Scoggin, LLC, Cheyenne, WY.

Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. 

Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be 

made before final publication in the permanent volume.
1

HILL, Justice.

[¶1] In 2011, Richard Reynolds filed a complaint against Christopher Bonar claiming 

personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. That complaint was dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders. In 2012, Reynolds re-filed 

his complaint against Bonar. Reynolds’ second complaint was dismissed for failure to 

comply with discovery, this time with prejudice. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Reynolds states the issue for our review as follows:

Did the Court have authority to dismiss [Reynolds’] case with 

prejudice?

FACTS

[¶3] On May 24, 2011, Reynolds filed a complaint against Bonar, alleging that he and 

another plaintiff in that action, Alicia Carlisle, suffered injuries when the motor vehicle in 

which they were passengers was struck by a vehicle being driven by Bonar. On June 14, 

2011, Bonar filed an answer to the complaint. On November 1, 2011, Bonar filed a 

Motion to Compel Discovery, alleging that Plaintiffs Reynolds and Carlisle had not 

provided their initial disclosures, which were due within thirty days after Bonar filed his 

answer, and also alleging that Plaintiffs had not fully answered the interrogatories and 

requests for production that had been served on them. On November 30, 2011, the 

district court heard the motion to compel and ordered that Plaintiffs submit their 

discovery responses by December 7, 2011.

[¶4] On December 8, 2011, Bonar filed Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions for 

Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply with Discovery. On January 11, 2012, the court issued an 

order granting the motion for sanctions and further providing that “if the Plaintiffs do not 

provide the full and complete responses to discovery and initial disclosures within the 

(sic) thirty days of the filing of this order, their Complaint will be dismissed.” On 

February 10, 2012, Bonar filed a motion to dismiss based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply 

with the court’s order. On March 9, 2012, the court granted Bonar’s motion and 

dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In so ordering, the court stated:

The Plaintiffs were obliged to provide their disclosures 

under the provision of Rule 26 on or before July 25, 2011. 

Plaintiff, Alicia Carlisle filed her disclosure on February 24, 

2012. Plaintiff Richard Reynolds has yet to file his initial 

disclosures. The Plaintiffs have been granted adequate notice 

and ample opportunity to comply with the Court’s discovery 
2

orders. Despite repeated attempts by the Defendant and this 

Court to coerce their compliance, the Plaintiffs have yet to 

provide full and complete responses to discovery requests as 

ordered by the Court. As of this date, the Plaintiffs have not 

provided complete answers to interrogatories requested from 

Mr. Reynolds, income tax returns needed to calculate lost 

wages, initial disclosures for Mr. Reynolds, or any answers to 

interrogatories requested from Ms. Carlisle. This is in 

violation of the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion 

for Sanctions for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply with 

Discovery Order. In view of the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply 

with the Court’s orders in the past, the Court has no reason to 

believe the Plaintiffs will comply with yet another order 

requiring provision of properly requested information as well 

as information simply required by Rule 26. It is, therefore, 

appropriate that this Court dismiss the action as a sanction.

[¶5] On September 5, 2012, Reynolds re-filed his Complaint for Monetary Damages 

against Bonar, and on September 25, 2012, Bonar filed his answer. On December 20, 

2012, Bonar filed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery alleging that Reynolds had 

not provided his Rule 26 initial disclosures, which were due on or before October 25, 

2012, and alleging that Reynolds had not responded to interrogatories and requests for 

production that had been served on October 10, 2012. On February 13, 2013, the district 

court issued an Order of Dismissal, dismissing Reynolds’ complaint with prejudice. The 

court included the following findings in its order:

3. The Plaintiff’s initial disclosures were due on or 

before October 25, 2012; however, to date the Plaintiff has 

not provided Defendant with his initial disclosures.

4. Defendant, Christopher Bonar served 

Defendant’s First Set of Combined Interrogatories and 

Requests for Production of Documents to the Plaintiff via 

U.S. Mail to Plaintiff’s counsel on October 10, 2012. . . .

5. After the filing of the motion to compel, on 

February 4, 2013, Defendant did receive answers to 

interrogatories from the Plaintiff that were signed and 

responded to in part, but not complete. 

6. The Plaintiff has not provided responses to the 

requests for production of documents. 

7. A notice of setting of the hearing on the motion 

to compel discovery, setting the hearing for February 6, 2013 

at 10:00 a.m., was served on Counsel for both parties on 

January 18, 2013.
3

8. That Plaintiff’s counsel did not attend the 

hearing in person or by telephone nor did he request leave 

from this Court for the hearing setting.

9. That a similar complaint was previously filed 

by Plaintiff and his counsel against this Defendant in this 

Court, Doc. 178, No. 180.

10. This Court is advised and takes judicial notice 

of the fact that the Plaintiff’s complaint against this 

Defendant in Doc. 178, No. 180 was dismissed by the District 

Court in its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Complaint of Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37 of the Wyoming 

Rules of Civil Procedure entered on March 9, 2012.

11. That the Plaintiff has failed to properly engage 

in discovery herein and it is appropriate this Court dismiss 

this action with prejudice.

[¶6] On March 12, 2013, Reynolds timely filed a Notice of Appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶7] This Court reviews a district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to comply 

with discovery requirements for an abuse of discretion. White v. State ex rel. Wyo. DOT, 

2009 WY 90, ¶¶ 9-10, 210 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Wyo. 2009) (upholding dismissal with 

prejudice for failure to comply with discovery requirements). In this appeal, however, 

Reynolds does not challenge the district court’s exercise of discretion. He instead 

contends that the court’s dismissal with prejudice violated Wyoming constitutional 

provisions governing separation of powers and access to courts. Constitutional issues are 

questions of law, which we review de novo. Osborn v. State, 2012 WY 159, ¶ 8, 290 

P.3d 1096, 1098 (Wyo. 2012).

DISCUSSION

A. Access to Courts

[¶8] Reynolds contends that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint with 

prejudice barred his access to court in violation of the Wyoming Constitution’s 

guarantees of access to courts, which provides:

All courts shall be open and every person for an injury 

done to person, reputation or property shall have justice 

administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be 

brought against the state in such manner and in such courts as 

the legislature may by law direct.
4

Wyo. Const. art. I, § 8.

[¶9] This Court has previously addressed this same challenge under similar 

circumstances. In White, a district court responded to multiple discovery violations with 

an order that directed the plaintiffs to provide discovery responses and pay sanctions, 

vacated the trial, and provided that a new trial date would not be set until the plaintiffs 

complied with the court’s discovery order. White, ¶¶ 7-8, 210 P.3d at 1098-99. When 

the plaintiffs failed to provide complete discovery responses, the court dismissed the 

plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. Id., ¶ 9, 210 P.3d at 1099. We upheld the dismissal 

and rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they had been denied access to court in violation 

of art. I, § 8, reasoning that “Appellants did have ‘access to the courts’ when they filed 

their complaint. The action was dismissed solely because of Appellants’ failure to 

comply with appropriate court orders.” Id., ¶ 15, 210 P.3d at 1100.

[¶10] This Court held likewise in Terry v. Sweeney, 10 P.3d 554 (Wyo. 2000). In Terry, 

a mistrial was ordered when one of the plaintiffs referred to the defendant’s insurance 

during testimony, in violation of a pretrial order. Terry, 10 P.3d at 556. The court 

ordered the plaintiffs to pay sanctions and further ordered that a new trial date would not 

be set until the sanction was paid. Id. After the plaintiffs failed to pay the sanction after 

multiple orders and extensions of the payment deadline, the court dismissed the 

plaintiffs’ action with prejudice. Id. at 556-57. In upholding the dismissal, we observed:

It is generally recognized that a court does not violate 

an open courts provision when it acts to punish conduct that 

disrupts the orderly administration of justice. See, e.g., Jensen 

v. Zuern, 517 N.W.2d 118, 129 (N.D.Ct.App. 1994); Williams 

v. State, 405 N.W.2d 615, 624-25 (N.D. 1987); Protect Our 

Mountain Environment, Inc. v. District Court in and for 

County of Jefferson, 677 P.2d 1361, 1367 n. 6 (Colo. 1984)

(en banc); Eismann v. Miller, 101 Idaho 692, 619 P.2d 1145, 

1150 (1980). The record reflects no effort by Terry to make 

any level of payment, no matter how small. It is specious to 

argue that, despite an almost three-year grace period, the 

court’s sanction constituted denial of access to the courts to a 

plaintiff who was already physically in court and who made 

no apparent efforts to comply with its orders.

Terry, 10 P.3d at 559.

[¶11] Our clear precedent mandates the same result in this case. Reynolds had access to 

court, and his action was dismissed solely because of his failure to comply with court 

orders. 
5

B. Separation of Powers

[¶12] In addition to his access to court argument, Reynolds argues that the district 

court’s dismissal with prejudice, because it precludes him from filing a new action, 

intruded on the legislature’s authority to dictate when an action may be commenced. In 

support of this argument, Reynolds cites generally to the separation of powers provision 

found at art. II, § 1 of the Wyoming Constitution, and to the following statutory provision 

governing new actions:

If in an action commenced in due time a judgment for 

the plaintiff is reversed, or if the plaintiff fails otherwise 

than upon the merits and the time limited for the 

commencement of the action has expired at the date of the 

reversal or failure, the plaintiff, or his representatives if he 

dies and if the cause of action survives, may commence a 

new action within one (1) year after the date of the failure or 

reversal. This provision also applies to any claim asserted in 

any pleading by a defendant.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-118 (LexisNexis 2013).

[¶13] Our clear precedent again mandates that we reject Reynolds’ argument. We have 

observed that the power of courts to control the administration of justice, including the 

sanctioning of parties, “is essential to the separation of powers concept and allows a court 

to act notwithstanding contrary legislative direction.” Terry, 10 P.3d at 558 (quoting BiRite Package v. District Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., 735 P.2d 709, 714 (Wyo. 1987)). 

And, this Court has long held that the Wyoming Constitution grants the courts, not the 

legislature, the power to control the course of litigation.

Article 5, § 2 of the Constitution of the State of Wyoming

provides in pertinent part that this Court “shall have a general 

superintending control over all inferior courts, under such 

rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law.” This 

general superintending control “encompasses the authority to 

prescribe rules of practice and procedure in those courts.” 

White v. Fisher, 689 P.2d at 106. We have consistently 

upheld this Court’s plenary power to control the course of 

litigation in the trial courts. Id. The legislature recognizes 

these pertinent constitutional provisions which afford this 

Court full authority over rules of practice and procedure and 

the Court’s inherent power to prescribe rules.
6

Squillace v. Kelley, 990 P.2d 497, 501 (Wyo. 1999).

[¶14] Rule 37(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the sanction of 

dismissal with prejudice for discovery violations, and the rule is clearly within the 

authority of the judicial branch to control the course of litigation. The district court did 

not exceed its authority or act in an unconstitutional manner when it dismissed Reynolds’

complaint in response to repeated discovery violations.

C. Rule 10.05 Sanctions

[¶15] Rule 10.05 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes this Court to 

impose sanctions against an appellant upon our certification that there was no reasonable 

cause for appeal. The rule provides, in relevant part:

If the court certifies there was no reasonable cause for the 

appeal, a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees and damages 

to the appellee shall be fixed by the appellate court and taxed 

as part of the costs in the case. The amount for attorneys’ fees 

shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more 

than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The amount for 

damages to the appellee shall not exceed two thousand dollars 

($2,000.00).

W.R.A.P. 10.05.

[¶16] “We are reluctant to award attorney’s fees and damages under Rule 10.05 and do 

so only in rare circumstances.” Budd-Falen Law Offices, P.C. v. Rocky Mt. Recovery, 

Inc., 2005 WY 77, ¶ 26, 114 P.3d 1284, 1291 (Wyo. 2005) (citing Drake v. McCulloh, 

2002 WY 50, ¶ 24, 43 P.3d 578, ¶ 24, (Wyo. 2002)). We view this case as presenting the 

appropriate circumstances in which to make such an award. Reynolds repeatedly failed 

to comply with his discovery obligations and repeatedly violated the district court’s 

discovery orders. On appeal, Reynolds did not challenge the district court’s exercise of 

discretion and instead presented constitutional claims that were contrary to this Court’s 

clear precedent. Given these circumstances, we certify that there was no reasonable 

cause for this appeal and hold that Bonar is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs for the 

time and effort expended in responding to this appeal.

CONCLUSION

[¶17] We find no constitutional violation in the district court’s dismissal of Reynolds’

complaint for failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders, and we affirm that 

dismissal with prejudice. Additionally, we impose sanctions upon Reynolds. Bonar shall 
7

submit a statement of costs and attorney’s fees associated with responding to Reynolds’

appeal. Upon review, we will award an appropriate amount in the form of sanctions.