Opinion ID: 2630934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: NRCP 37(b)(2) sanctions

Text: Bahena contends that Goodyear violated the discovery order to produce a witness for deposition prior to December 28, 2006. We agree. NRCP 37(b)(2) provides, in part, that if a person designated by a party to testify fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery..., the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and, among other things, enter the following sanctions: An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party. NRCP 37(b)(2)(C). In this case, the discovery commissioner made a ruling at a hearing on December 14, 2006, that Goodyear must produce a witness for deposition to testify as to the authenticity of voluminous documents prior to December 28, 2006. Goodyear did not request the discovery commissioner stay this ruling pursuant to EDCR 2.34(e), the local district court rule that would allow such a stay. Thereafter, the time to produce the witness for deposition passed. On January 3, 2007, Goodyear filed objections to the discovery commissioner's written report and recommendations dated December 20, 2006, requiring the deposition. The district court initially approved the discovery commissioner's recommendations by an order dated January 5, 2007. Since the district court did not receive a copy of the objections filed by Goodyear on January 3, 2007, the district court allowed Goodyear to argue its objections at a hearing held January 9, 2007. The district court again overruled Goodyear's objections at the conclusion of this hearing. [5] Goodyear was required to comply with the discovery commissioner's ruling announced at the December 14 hearing, unless the ruling was overruled by the district court. See NRCP 16.3(b) (stating that the discovery commissioner has the authority to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of his duties). A ruling by the discovery commissioner is effective and must be complied with for discovery purposes once it is made, orally or written, unless the party seeks a stay of the ruling pending review by the district court. Id. ; EDCR 2.34(e). Goodyear failed to seek a stay of the ruling or an expedited review by the district court prior to the time to comply with the ruling, and was therefore required to comply with the discovery commissioner's directive. The failure to do so was tantamount to a violation of a discovery order as it relates to NRCP 37(b)(2). Young, 106 Nev. at 92, 787 P.2d at 779 (holding that a court's oral ruling was sufficient to constitute an order to provide or permit discovery under NRCP 37(b)(2)). In Young , [t]he court sanctioned Young by ordering him to pay [the nonoffending party's] costs and fees on the motion to dismiss, by dismissing Young 's entire complaint with prejudice, and by adopting the final accounting proposed by [the nonoffending party] as a form of default judgment against Young  even though Young argued that [the nonoffending party's] accounting was factually insufficient to constitute a default judgment. 106 Nev. at 91, 787 P.2d at 778 (emphasis added). We disagreed with Young and affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects since Young forfeited his right to object to all but the most patent and fundamental defects in the accounting. [6] Id. at 95, 787 P.2d at 781. After the hearing on January 9, 2007, Bahena filed a motion to allow damages to be established by way of a prove-up hearing. Goodyear filed an opposition to this motion and a countermotion for reconsideration regarding the discovery sanction issues as to the interrogatory answers, the discovery commissioner's report and recommendations regarding the deposition and self-executing authentication sanctions, and the order striking Goodyear's answer. The district court granted Goodyear's request for reconsideration and reopened argument upon the issue of appropriate sanctions for these discovery abuses. At the hearing on January 18, 2007, the district court discussed the discovery commissioner's recommendations regarding producing a witness for deposition and observed as follows: I would have overruled your objections because the recommendation is very clear on its face. There is no confusion. It says what it says. And all you have to do is read it and comply with it. The district court then proceeded to review the history of discovery abuses in this case involving Goodyear not only as to Bahena, but as to the codefendant Garm Investments, Inc. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing non-case concluding sanctions upon Goodyear pursuant to NRCP 37(b)(2).