Opinion ID: 1207233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: production issue

Text: Prior to trial the plaintiff made a request for production of documents under Rule 34 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.C.P.). The defendant was asked to produce eleven specific categories of documents. The twelfth category was a general one for [all] other documents in the defendant's possession ... relative to this litigation and not covered by the foregoing requests. In answer to this request, the defendant responded that such documents requested do not exist. At trial, the defendant took the position that the interior of the building was substantially damaged when he first examined it in connection with the proposed roof work. To corroborate his point, he testified that on August 10, 1977, at the time he replaced the roof, he had submitted an estimate to the plaintiff for repairs to the interior of the building. The defendant also offered into evidence a written copy of the estimate. The plaintiff objected since the existence of the document had not been revealed on discovery. Although both parties cite cases construing Rule 37, R.C.P., we find that those cases fail to resolve the questions presented on appeal. Ordinarily, Rule 37 is designed to permit the use of sanctions against a party who refuses to comply with the discovery rules, i.e., Rules 26 through 36. See 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2281 (1970). Generally, under Rule 37, in order to trigger the imposition of sanctions where a party refuses to comply with a discovery request, the other party must file a motion to have the court order discovery. See Rule 37(a). [1] If the discovery order is issued and not obeyed, then the party may seek sanctions under Rule 37(b). The exceptions to the requirement for an order compelling discovery before sanctions can be obtained are contained in Rule 37(d). [2] This provision enables a party to seek sanctions directly from the court where the opposing party has failed: (1) to attend his own deposition; (2) to answer or object to interrogatories; or (3) to serve written response to a request for inspection under Rule 34. We discussed this matter briefly in State ex rel. McGraw v. West Virginia Judicial Review Board, W.Va., 271 S.E.2d 344 (1980), where sanctions were sought because a witness had failed to answer certain questions at the taking of a deposition. We held that sanctions could not be imposed because there had been no motion under Rule 37(a) and no subsequent order directing the answers which if disobeyed would have formed the basis for sanctions under Rule 37(b). We did not discuss the Rule 37(d) exceptions because they were not applicable to the facts. [3] In the present case, the claimed discovery violation involved an incorrect response to one of a series of requests for production of documents under Rule 34. Initially, a written response was filed by the defendant to the plaintiff's request for admissions. Consequently, the direct sanctions under Rule 37(d) were not available as the imposition of sanctions under this provision is triggered when there is no response to a request for production of documents. Ordinarily, where an inadequate response has been made, to trigger sanctions under Rule 37(b), an order compelling discovery would have to be obtained. If the recalcitrant party does not obey the order then a request for sanctions can be made. 4A J. Moore, J. Lucas & D. Epstein, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 37.05 (1983). The reason that this case does not fit into a Rule 37 context is that the plaintiff had no way of knowing that the defendant's initial answer was untrue when the defendant responded that no documents existed. As a result, the plaintiff had no reason to seek sanctions under Rule 37. If at the time the defendant made the answer he had not found the document, then his answer was true. However, Rule 26(e)(2), R.C.P., imposes a continuing obligation to supplement responses previously made when, in light of subsequent information, the original response is incorrect. [4] Under this rule, the defendant did have an obligation once the document was located to make its existence known to the plaintiff. Despite the lack of any express provision in Rule 26(e) authorizing the imposition of sanctions for failure to supplement previous discovery responses that are incorrect in light of current information, most courts have held that a trial court has inherent power to impose sanctions as a part of its obligation to conduct a fair and orderly trial. Washington Hospital Center v. Cheeks, 394 F.2d 964 (D.C.Cir.1968); Clark v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 328 F.2d 591 (2nd Cir.1964), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 1006, 84 S.Ct. 1943, 12 L.Ed.2d 1054; Campbell Industries v. M/V. Gemini, 619 F.2d 24 (9th Cir.1980); Price v. Lake Sales Supply R.M., Inc., 510 F.2d 388 (10th Cir.1974); Olson v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 256 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 1977); Laney v. Hefley, 262 S.C. 54, 202 S.E.2d 12 (1974); 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2050 (1970). [5] Courts have generally settled on several criteria for determining whether the failure to supplement discovery requests under Rule 26(e)(2) should require exclusion of evidence related to the supplementary material. The most common problem is where a party is required to give notice of his witnesses and fails to supplement the list and then seeks to call an unlisted witness. In DeMarines v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 580 F.2d 1193, 1201-02 (3d Cir. 1978), where the issue was barring a doctor's testimony, these factors were listed: `1. the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded witnesses would have testified; `2. the ability of that party to cure the prejudice; `3. the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or of other cases in the court; `4. bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with the court's order.' ... Additionally, we noted the significance of the practical importance of the evidence excluded. See also Franklin Music v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 616 F.2d 528 (3d Cir.1979); Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association, 559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir.1977); Murphy v. Magnolia Electric Power Association, 639 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1981); Lewis Refrigeration Co. v. Sawyer Fruit, Vegetable and Cold Storage Co., 709 F.2d 427 (6th Cir.1983); Phil Crowley Steel Corp. v. Macomber, Inc., 601 F.2d 342 (8th Cir.1979); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F.2d 784 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1363, 67 L.Ed.2d 344 (1981). We briefly spoke to this issue in W.L. Thaxton Construction Co. v. O.K. Construction Co., W.Va., 295 S.E.2d 822 (1982), where the defendant failed to include certain information in its interrogatory answers. The trial court refused to permit the introduction of this information at trial. We held that the trial court had abused its discretion and concluded, without elaboration, that there had been no surprise to the opposite party. Utilizing the foregoing factors, we do not believe that the trial court in the case before us abused its discretion in admitting the exhibit. The elements of surprise and prejudice to the plaintiff were rather minimal since the defendant in his pretrial deposition had testified that there was substantial water damage to the interior of the pool building when he inspected it at the time he put on the new roof. He testified regarding the damage and indicated that in his view much of the damage occurred as a result of flooding from Wheeling Creek. This was essentially the same testimony offered at the trial which was corroborated by Melvin Vanerman, who had worked with the defendant on repairing the roof. Thus, the facts were known before trial and were corroborated at trial by another witness. The document thus only provided additional corroboration. Moreover, the document applied only to one element of the plaintiff's damage claim. There is no factual development to show willfulness or bad faith on the part of the defendant. Although the record indicates the defense attorney had been given the document a week or so prior to trial, we are left with the impression that the trial court ascribed his failure to turn over the document to inadvertence rather than willfulness or bad faith. We, therefore, find no reversible error on this point.