Court Opinion

ID: 9853378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:47:29.225718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:46.474529
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the Court with one exception. In Zweifel v. State ex rel. Brimmer, Wyo., 517 P.2d 493 (1974) this Court said in connection with the entry of a default judgment for failure to answer interrogatories, at 517 P.2d 498:
“* * * Rule 37(d), W.R.C.P., is explicit in permitting the entry of default judgment against one who fails to file answers to interrogatories or to excuse such failure. * * *”
Rule 37(d), W.R.C.P. is equally explicit with respect to the failure of a party to appear for the taking of his deposition. For me this would be a sufficient basis on which to dispose of the first issue raised by the appellant, although I question whether this issue was preserved in the record.
To the extent that the Court’s opinion suggests that an abuse of discretion in granting a partial judgment as a sanction under these circumstances might be cured *1391by trying the issues as to which the default judgment was entered without setting aside the default judgment or notifying counsel that the issues would be tried, I cannot agree that this is or should be the law. Such an approach well could be as prejudicial to a party as an abuse of discretion in granting the partial default judgment initially. In the absence of any reason to believe that the partial default judgment was not exactly what the trial court said it was, a party quite likely would be unprepared to try the issues as to which the partial default judgment had been entered. Trying the issues in such a case would compound, not cure, the prejudice.