Opinion ID: 1715519
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: attorney fees for failure to comply with discovery requests

Text: Wal-Mart next asserts that the district court erred in awarding Greenwalt attorney fees for Wal-Mart's failure to comply with Greenwalt's discovery requests. On appeal, a trial court's decision awarding or denying attorney fees will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion. Rapp v. Rapp, 252 Neb. 341, 562 N.W.2d 359 (1997); Shockley v. Shockley, 251 Neb. 896, 560 N.W.2d 777 (1997). In the instant case, Greenwalt twice filed a motion to compel discovery after Wal-Mart failed to respond to Greenwalt's discovery requests. In each instance, the district court conducted a hearing and granted Greenwalt's motion. After conducting a hearing on Greenwalt's motion for sanctions, the district court entered an order stating: Upon the evidence adduced, briefs submitted and argument of counsel, the Court finds as follows: 1. Defendant, Wal-Mart, shall be sanctioned for its failure to comply with discovery requests. Plaintiff [Greenwalt] is entitled to attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion for Sanctions and associated hearings held thereon. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees in the sum of $5,000.00 total for both plaintiff's counsel involved. Rule 37(a)(4) states that if a motion for order compelling discovery is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. (Emphasis supplied.) Implicit in the district court's order is its finding that Wal-Mart's opposition to Greenwalt's motions to compel discovery was not substantially justified. As with Wal-Mart's second motion for a protective order, its first motion failed to make out a prima facie claim that the 334-page internal report requested by Greenwalt was privileged. Thus, we conclude that it was not clearly untenable for the district court to find that Wal-Mart's opposition to Greenwalt's motions to compel discovery was not substantially justified. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Greenwalt attorney fees in connection with the motions to compel discovery, motion for sanctions, and associated hearings held thereon.