Opinion ID: 2638442
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The sanction chosen was sufficiently related to DeNardo's violation of the order.

Text: The trial court must be allowed to enforce its discovery orders with sanctions tailored to fit the circumstances. [29] The test for the validity of a discovery sanction that dismisses claims or orders facts or issues to be taken as established under [Rule 37(b)(2) ] is whether these claims or issues are `elements of the dispute that cannot be determined on the merits without disclosure of the evidence the Court has ordered the party to produce.' [30] If the dismissed claims are unrelated to the information the party refuses to supply, the discovery sanction constitutes punishment and is impermissible. [31] The credibility of a party is relevant to the issue of how to interpret an oral contract. [32] Evidence of DeNardo's credibility, which could be influenced by information gained from prior residences, and prior employment, was highly relevant to the dismissed claims. And subsequent employment, as well as tax information, are relevant to the issue of damages. Because the information requested was directly relevant to the claims at issue, the dismissal sanction was sufficiently related to the violation.