Opinion ID: 2521676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The strike order and entry of default

Text: Dornan, Foster, and Cochrane challenge the district court's order striking their pleadings. They primarily claim that the court erred by failing to make the findings required in Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, 106 Nev. 88, 787 P.2d 777 (1990), before imposing the strike sanction. [5] NRCP 37(b)(2)(C) grants the district court authority to strike the pleadings in the event that a party fails to obey a discovery order. This court generally reviews a district court's imposition of a discovery sanction for abuse of discretion. Young, 106 Nev. at 92, 787 P.2d at 779. However, a somewhat heightened standard of review applies where the sanction strikes the pleadings, resulting in dismissal with prejudice. Id. Under this somewhat heightened standard, the district court abuses its discretion if the sanctions are not just and do not relate to the claims at issue in the discovery order that was violated. Id. at 92, 787 P.2d at 779-80. NRCP 37(d) specifically provides that the court may strike a party's pleadings if that party fails to attend his own deposition. [6] In addition, this court has upheld entries of default where litigants are unresponsive and engage in abusive litigation practices that cause interminable delays. Young, 106 Nev. at 94, 787 P.2d at 780; Temora Trading Co. v. Perry, 98 Nev. 229, 230-31, 645 P.2d 436, 437 (1982) (upholding default judgment where corporate officers failed to show up for court-ordered depositions). In Young, we emphasized that every order of dismissal with prejudice as a discovery sanction [must] be supported by an express, careful and preferably written explanation of the court's analysis of the pertinent factors. 106 Nev. at 93, 787 P.2d at 780. In doing so, this court provided a nonexhaustive list of factors that a district court should consider when imposing this discovery sanction. Id. In this case, the district court drafted a lengthy strike order, which set forth detailed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and its consideration of each of the Young factors. After reviewing the record and the court's order, we conclude that the court's decision to strike defendants' pleadings and enter default was just, related to the claims at issue in the violated discovery order, and supported by a careful written analysis of the pertinent factors. Additionally, we conclude that appellants' continued discovery abuses and failure to comply with the district court's first sanction order evidences their willful and recalcitrant disregard of the judicial process, which presumably prejudiced Dingwall, Yang, and Chai. See Hamlett v. Reynolds, 114 Nev. 863, 865, 963 P.2d 457, 458 (1998) (upholding the district court's strike order where the defaulting party's constant failure to follow [the court's] orders was unexplained and unwarranted); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products, 460 F.3d 1217, 1236 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that, with respect to discovery abuses, [p]rejudice from unreasonable delay is presumed and failure to comply with court orders mandating discovery is sufficient prejudice). In light of appellants' repeated and continued abuses, the policy of adjudicating cases on the merits would not have been furthered in this case, and the ultimate sanctions were necessary to demonstrate to future litigants that they are not free to act with wayward disregard of a court's orders. Moreover, we conclude that Dornan's, Foster's, and Cochrane's failure to oppose Dingwall's second motion to strike constitutes an admission that the motion was meritorious. Cf. King v. Cartlidge, 121 Nev. 926, 927, 124 P.3d 1161, 1162 (2005) (stating that an unopposed motion may be considered as an admission of merit and consent to grant the motion) (citing DCR 13(3)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to strike Dornan's, Foster's, and Cochrane's pleadings and enter default against them.