Opinion ID: 2638757
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal as Discovery Sanction

Text: The superior court generally has broad discretion in sanctioning discovery violations, subject only to review for abuse of discretion. [15] But the trial court's discretion is limited when the effect of the sanction it selects is to impose liability on the offending party, establish the outcome of or preclude evidence on a central issue, or end the litigation entirely. [16] Alaska Foods appeals the superior court's dismissal for failure to make discovery. It argues, first, that it had responded to Nichiro's discovery requests. We find no merit in Alaska Foods's claim that it responded to Nichiro's discovery requests. Alaska Foods's response stated that Plaintiff is currently attempting to ascertain the answers to this interrogatory and will submit its answer and/or objections by May 31, 1990. On May 31 Alaska Foods informed Nichiro that it would not make discovery until the court ruled on its motion for a stay. But even after the court denied this motion, Alaska Foods failed to answer Nichiro's discovery requests. A party cannot satisfy a discovery request by claiming that it is attempting to ascertain the answers, and putting off its obligation to a later date. Accordingly, Alaska Foods is in no position to claim that it satisfied its discovery obligations by serving discovery responses. [17] Alaska Foods next argues that the court could not impose discovery sanctions because Nichiro never filed a motion to compel. But under Alaska Civil Rule 37(d), if a party fails to provide answers to properly served interrogatories, the superior court may punish the disobedience with such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including any of the actions authorized under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of Rule 37(b)(2). Rule 37(b)(2)(C) provides that the trial court may issue an order dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party. Thus, Civil Rule 37(d) allows the court to impose the sanctions provided in subsection (b)including dismissalon the motion of a party seeking discovery, without first issuing an order compelling compliance. Because failure to respond to a discovery request strikes at the very heart of the discovery system, and threatens the fundamental assumption on which the whole apparatus of discovery was designed, Rule 37(b) contemplates that in the vast majority of instances, the discovery system will be self-executing. [Such a failure] provides the propounding party with no evidence at all, no basis to begin to understand the grounds for objection, and thus no basis for a dialogue that might refine and move the discovery process forward. It is precisely because outright failures to respond to discovery halt the case development process dead in its tracks, and threaten the underpinnings of the discovery system, that subdivision (d) of Rule 37 authorizes ... courts, in responding to this kind of misconduct, ... to impose in the first instance any of a wide range of sanctions [, including dismissal]. [18] Accordingly, the superior court was not required to compel discovery before it sanctioned Alaska Foods's disobedience. Our prior cases, however, make clear that a trial court may not issue litigation-ending sanctions without first exploring possible and meaningful alternatives to dismissal. [19] If meaningful alternative sanctions are available, the trial court must ordinarily impose these lesser sanctions rather than a dismissal with prejudice. [20] In this case, the superior court did not make any findings regarding alternatives. The court's findings discuss Alaska Foods's repeated failure to make discovery, note that the company failed to demonstrate its lack of willfulness, hold that Nichiro suffered prejudice, and conclude that dismissal was therefore warranted. But the findings are silent on the subject of lesser alternatives, and in the absence of proper findings rejecting such alternatives, we must vacate the sanction and remand for reconsideration. [21]