Opinion ID: 2378741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Nevada caselaw

Text: As set forth in Bahena I, 126 Nev. ___, 235 P.3d 592, the leading Nevada Supreme Court case regarding the issue of sanctions is Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, 106 Nev. 88, 787 P.2d 777 (1990). In Young, the court affirmed the decision to dismiss Young's complaint and discussed our standard of review of abuse of discretion. We stated that [e]ven if we would not have imposed such sanctions in the first instance, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the district court. Id. at 92, 787 P.2d at 779. The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that while dismissal need not be preceded by other less severe sanctions, it should be imposed only after thoughtful consideration of all the factors involved in a particular case. Id. at 92, 787 P.2d at 780 (emphasis added). In Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. ___, 227 P.3d 1042 (2010), we reiterated the holding in Young by affirming discovery sanctions of entry of a default judgment. The majority in Foster concluded that NRCP 37(b)(2)(C) and 37(d) specifically and independently provide that a court may strike a party's pleadings if that party fails to obey a discovery order or fails to attend his or her own deposition. 126 Nev. at ___, 227 P.3d at 1048. Finally, we concluded that the sanctions were necessary to demonstrate to future litigants that they are not free to act with wayward disregard of a court's orders, and that the conduct of the appellants evidenced their willful and recalcitrant disregard of the judicial process. 126 Nev. at ___, 227 P.3d at 1049. Nevada jurisprudence does not follow the federal model of requiring progressive sanctions against a party for failing to comply with a discovery order or for failing to attend their deposition. In Higgs v. State, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 222 P.3d 648, 658 (2010), we concluded that with respect to the admissibility of expert testimony, Nevada law controls, and that we only look at federal jurisprudence for guidancewhen needed.  We further concluded that evidentiary authority allows the trial judge discretion in deciding what factors are to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 126 Nev. at ___, 222 P.3d at 659. We hold that this framework also applies to discovery sanctions.