Opinion ID: 1385982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of the Sanctions Order

Text: The interrogatories and requests for production at issue were served on December 21, 1987. Otis objected to the interrogatories because there were more than thirty questions. [1] Northward moved to compel. The motion was granted on February 3, 1988, but the trial court permitted Otis to make additional objections to the interrogatories and set a deadline. Otis answered one interrogatory entirely, two partially, and objected to the rest, stating they were too burdensome and overly broad. All of the requests for the production of documents were objected to on the same basis, except one. On July 19, 1988, Northward moved for an order compelling discovery, seeking answers to all of the interrogatories and production of the requested documents. Otis opposed the motion, and a hearing was held on November 8, 1988. The court found that one of the interrogatories was too broad and required no answer. Numerous other interrogatories, as well as several requests for production, were narrowed in scope by the court as to time and place. The court set a December 30, 1988 deadline for Otis to comply. Otis answered the interrogatories and responded to the requests for production. Northward was not satisfied with Otis' responses and, on January 20, 1989, made a motion for an order of sanctions. Northward argued its request for production of documents for this elevator or similar elevators was narrowly construed by Otis. At oral argument, the court construed similar to mean an elevator that operates basically the same as this elevator. On the other hand, Otis construed similar to mean electric geared elevators which, like the subject elevator, are equipped with a 10 UCL controller and with a 6850C selector. Otis produced information concerning 958 elevators located throughout the country that were known to fit this description. In opposing the motion for sanctions, Otis argued that elevators having different controllers and selectors were significantly different from the elevator under dispute. In its motion supporting sanctions, Northward argued that Otis purposefully omitted producing information concerning similar elevators in Sacramento, where Northward's expert resided. In response to this allegation, Otis stated it compiled the information concerning the 958 elevators similar to that involved in this case from forms available at Otis' home office, and that some of these forms were not completely filled out. Otis noted that Northward inspected documents only in Anchorage and indicated no interest in viewing documents at any other locations where documents were available. The trial court granted sanctions striking Otis' defenses on the issue of liability. The court found that Otis has been willful in failing to produce discovery throughout the course of this litigation from the outset. The court also found that Otis too narrowly construed the term similar: Any realistic reading of any of the requests for production, at the very least, Otis should have said something like, we don't know if this elevator in this building has a 10UCL selector, `cause we don't keep information that way  or mechanism  but it does have a 6850 selector. Civil Rule 37(b)(2) allows sanctions to be imposed when a party fails to comply with a court order requiring discovery: If a party ... 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 others the following: (A) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order[.] An order that imposes liability on a defendant is an extreme sanction which should be used only in extreme cases. This is not such a case. It is arguable that Otis complied with the order compelling discovery of November 8, 1988. To the extent that it may have fallen short of compliance by too narrowly interpreting what was meant by a similar elevator, its non-compliance seems trivial. Northward did not indicate an interest in inspecting the more than 900 files outside of Anchorage pertaining to the same model elevator. It therefore seems unlikely that Northward was interested in going even further afield and inspecting the many volumes of files concerning elevators which may broadly be similar, but have different controllers and selectors. If, however, that was Northward's goal, the court should have issued a clarifying order. The court's statement that Otis intentionally failed to make discovery from the outset of this litigation is too general to serve as a basis for affirming the order. The subject of the motion for sanctions was whether Otis had failed to comply with the order of November 8, 1988, not Otis' attitude in the abstract. In summary, there has been no demonstration in this case of willful non-compliance with a discovery order, which, as distinct from delay, inability, or good faith resistance, is necessary to justify litigation-ending sanctions. For these reasons, the order imposing sanctions against Otis is vacated.