Court Opinion

ID: 9404980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 20:04:55.717526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:38.112263
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                  Electronically Filed
                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                  26-JUN-2023
                                                  08:52 AM
                                                  Dkt. 139 MO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                        ROBERT J. DAHLAGER,
                 as Personal Representative of the
    ESTATE OF ROBERT G. DAHLAGER, Deceased, and MARY DAHLAGER,
             Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v.
  JACK'S DIVING LOCKER, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, and
      JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;
    DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; ROE "NON-PROFIT" CORPORATIONS 1-10;
                and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES 1-10,
               Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                       (CASE NO. 3CC14-1-00262K)

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
      (By:    Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.

             Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees Robert G.

Dahlager (Robert) 1 and Mary Dahlager (Mary) (collectively

Dahlagers) appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's

(1) August 16, 2017 Final Judgment and (2) June 2, 2017

      1  Robert passed away on August 9, 2017. His son Robert J. Dahlager
(Rob) was appointed as personal representative for Robert's estate, and in
that capacity was substituted into this case for Robert.
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"Findings of Fact [(FOF)] and Conclusions of Law [(COL)] and

Order After Jury-Waived Trial." 2

               Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Jack's Diving

Locker (Jack's) appeals from the circuit court's

(1) February 17, 2017 "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to

Compel Production of Documents Filed December 27, 2016[,]"

(2) March 1, 2017 "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel

Discovery and for Discovery Sanctions Filed January 13, 2017[,]"

(3) March 23, 2017 "Order Granting Fees and Costs Related to

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Filed

December 27, 2016[,]" and (4) March 23, 2017 "Order Granting

Fees and Costs Related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery

and for Discovery Sanctions Filed January 13, 2017[.]"

               We affirm.

                                 I.    BACKGROUND

A.     Factual Background

               According to the Dahlagers, Robert went to Jack's on

July 25, 2012, with his son Rob and grandson (Grandson), who

were visiting from Colorado.           Rob and Grandson were going on an

open-water dive tour with an instructor from Jack's, however

Grandson needed to complete a pool certification prior to the

tour.       While Robert and Rob waited for Grandson to complete his

        2   The Honorable Melvin H. Fujino presided.

                                         2
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

certification, Robert sat on a plastic chair on Jack's pool deck

and Rob sat beside him.

            After sitting on the chair for about an hour, Robert

turned to speak to Rob and Robert's chair collapsed backwards. 3

FOF 5, 7.    Robert fell on his back and hit his head, and

immediately shouted that his back hurt.          FOF 8.    Robert was

unable to straighten his back or "get up off the ground[.]"

FOF 9, 10.

             An ambulance transported Robert to Kona Community

Hospital.    FOF 11.    X-rays of his spine taken that same day

showed old injuries "but no new injury."          FOF 13.

            Two months later, Robert had an MRI and was diagnosed

with a "T10 Chance Fracture."        FOF 17.    Robert believed his fall

at Jack's caused this fracture.        FOF 18.

            After his fall at Jack's, Robert suffered other

injuries.    On October 31, 2013, Robert was on his lanai when he

tripped, fell, and broke his right shoulder.           FOF 21.    At trial,

Robert testified he did "not have range of motion, [could not]

raise his arm above his eyes, and [could] barely get his arm

above his arm pits."      FOF 22.    He also testified that on one

occasion when "he was using an inversion table for physical

      3  The parties do not expressly challenge any findings of fact in their
points of error.

                                      3
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

therapy related to the fall at Jack's," he sustained a neck

injury.     FOF 23.

             Before his fall at Jack's, Robert operated a bed and

breakfast, but said he was forced to sell it and move to Arizona

because the business suffered losses due to his injuries.

FOF 24.

B.     Procedural Background

       1.    Dahlagers' Complaint

             On July 22, 2014, three days before the statute of

limitations would have expired, the Dahlagers filed their

complaint, claiming the chair collapsed on Jack's pool deck as a

result of Jack's "negligent and careless disregard of duty[.]"

The Dahlagers asserted that Jack's failed to "properly inspect

and maintain the chairs provided to guests; . . . properly warn

users" of the chairs' "defective and/or dangerous condition; and

. . . exercise ordinary care for the safety of users of [its]

premises open to the public."       The Dahlagers further asserted

that Robert suffered "serious and permanent injuries" as a

result of the chair collapse and subsequent fall at Jack's.

             The Dahlagers, however, did not serve the complaint on

Jack's until January 9, 2015, almost six months later.

                                     4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

     2.    Interrogatories, Production of Documents, and Expert
           Reports

           On October 8, 2015, Jack's responded to the Dahlagers'

first request for production of documents, identifying the PADI 4

incident report form (PADI Incident Report) and Earl Watanabe's

investigative report (Watanabe Report). 5        Jack's, however, stated

that it was withholding production of these reports because they

were "both prepared in anticipation of litigation and to obtain

insurance defense."

           A week later, Jack's responded to the Dahlagers' first

request for answers to interrogatories.         In its response, Jack's

explained that of the ten chairs it purchased from Walmart, it

returned nine of the chairs after the incident but "held" the

chair Robert sat on for more than two years before disposing of

it as it received no notice of a suit:

           On June 8, 2012, Defendant purchased from Walmart 10 of the
           same type of chairs that Plaintiff was seated in at the
           time of the claimed fall. After the incident with
           Plaintiff, the particular chair that Plaintiff was seated
           in was placed in storage and held for more than 2 years, in
           anticipation of possible litigation, and when Defendant
           received no notice of claim, more than 2 years after the
           incident, the chair was disposed of. The other 9 chairs
           were returned to Walmart on July 26, 2012 as a precaution.

     4   PADI is the Professional Association of Diving Instructors. PADI
provides scuba certifications to individuals and dive centers. Jack's "PADI
Dive Center/Resort Certificate" states "[t]he insurance afforded by this
policy is a master policy issued to PADI Worldwide Corporation."

      5  PADI's insurer, Lexington Insurance Company retained York Insurance
Services Group as its third-party adjustor. York Insurance Services Group in
turn retained ICS Merrill, EMSI Investigative Services Division, to
investigate Robert's claims. ICS Merrill assigned Watanabe as the
investigator.

                                     5
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           On February 22, 2016, the circuit court continued the

bench trial from July 19, 2016, to March 8, 2017.      The circuit

court further ordered the Dahlagers to provide their written

expert reports by November 10, 2016, but the Dahlagers did not

provide any expert reports.

     3.    Motions to Compel and Sanctions

           On December 27, 2016, over a year after Jack's

disclosed the existence and withholding of the Watanabe and PADI

reports, the Dahlagers moved to compel production of these

reports.

           Attached to its memorandum opposing the production of

these reports, Jack's provided a declaration from Teresa Leicher

(Leicher), co-owner and managing partner of Jack's, dated

January 2017.   Leicher explained that Jack's purchased ten

chairs from Walmart on June 8, 2012.     Leicher further explained

that an August 28, 2012 letter notified Jack's that Ian Mattoch

was representing the Dahlagers, but "when more than two years

passed, and Jack's [] was not served with a Complaint from

Mr. Dahlager, we disposed of the chair that Mr. Dahlager was

seated in at the time of his fall."

           The circuit court granted the motion, finding the

Watanabe Report and the PADI Incident Report were "not within

the attorney-client privilege under Sapp v. Wong as well as --

as the case being cited in the rules of discovery."      (Formatting

                                  6
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

altered.)    62 Haw. 34, 609 P.2d 137 (1980).     Jack's complied,

providing both reports.

            The PADI Incident Report was a four-page report

detailing the incident.    It was completed on the day of the

incident by Andrew Woerner (Woerner), Jack's operations manager

at the time, and was faxed to PADI, where a claim file was

opened.   Jack's submitted the PADI Incident Report "with the

expectation that the contents would be kept confidential" and

the first page of the PADI incident Report states "[t]his report

is prepared in anticipation of litigation[.]"       (Formatting

altered.)    "PADI [I]nsureds" such as Jack's "are requested to

prepare an incident report whenever an event occurs which may

result in litigation."

            As for the Watanabe Report, Watanabe was assigned in

September 2012 to investigate Robert's claims against Jack's.

The Watanabe Report was dated October 9, 2012, and stated

"[t]his confidential report is submitted in anticipation of

future litigation.    It is and should always be considered

attorney/client work product[.]"       (Formatting altered.)   The

Watanabe Report included details about the investigation, and

provided full summaries of interviews with witnesses,

examination of the pool deck, and inspection of similar chairs

sold by Walmart.    In the portion of the Watanabe Report

detailing Woerner's interview, the report notes "[t]he chair

                                   7
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[from the incident] was returned to [Walmart] with the others

purchased at the same time as it was felt they may have been too

small.   None of the chairs had been retained."

            In the meantime, before Jack's produced the reports,

the Dahlagers filed another motion to compel, and requested

sanctions.    The Dahlagers sought information on the Watanabe

Report and the PADI Incident Report, and the chairs, including

the chair that collapsed.       The Dahlagers asked the circuit court

to "issue an order compelling Defendant Jack's to produce the

subject chair, other 9 exemplar chairs, and related

investigative reports[.]"

            The Dahlagers also asked the court to "issue

appropriate sanctions pursuant to [Hawai‘i Rules of Civil

Procedure (HRCP) Rule] 37(b)," 6 assuming Jack's had indeed

     6   HRCP 37(b)(2) provides in relevant part:

            If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a
            party or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)
            to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to
            provide or permit discovery, including an order made under
            subdivision (a) of this rule or Rule 35, or if a party
            fails to obey an order entered under Rule 26(f), 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;

                                                       (continued . . .)

                                      8
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

"destroyed this highly relevant evidence."            The Dahlagers argued

for a default judgment against Jack's as a punitive sanction

because Jack's willfully destroyed the subject chair and

intentionally returned the others like it.

            Jack's opposed the Dahlagers' motion, and included

another declaration by Leicher, also dated January 2017.               In

this declaration, Leicher stated Ian Mattoch "notified our

insurer that he no longer represented the Dahlagers on or about

January 14, 2013."

            The Dahlagers replied, and included copies of the

Watanabe and PADI reports Jack's produced along with two

receipts from Walmart - one dated June 8, 2012 showing a

purchase in the amount of $89.80 pretax for ten chairs along

with other items, and one dated July 26, 2012 showing credit

issued in the amount of $93.54 for "General MDSE Total[.]"

(Formatting altered.)

(. . . continued)

                    (B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party
                    to support or oppose designated claims or defenses,
                    or prohibiting him or her from introducing designated
                    matters in evidence;

                    (C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof,
                    or staying further proceedings until the order is
                    obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any
                    part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default
                    against the disobedient party . . . .

(Formatting altered.)

                                        9
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           At the hearing on the Dahlagers' motion to compel

discovery and for sanctions, the circuit court noted there was

an inconsistency regarding Jack's failure to preserve the chair.

Jack's position had been that "the chairs were destroyed two

years after the incident[,]" but the circuit court noted that

"based on the [c]ourt's ruling to compel discovery it appears

they may have been [re]turned . . . to [Walmart] the second day

after the incident[.]"

           The court also noted Jack's was under a duty to

preserve the evidence and analyzed whether sanctions were

appropriate.    In determining sanctions were indeed appropriate,

the circuit court stated that Jack's "will be precluded from

opposing or claiming that nothing was wrong with the chair,

because the [Dahlagers] have not had an opportunity to inspect

the chair" and it "will allow reasonable attorney's fees and

costs."   For the two motions to compel, the circuit court

awarded the Dahlagers a total of $20,037.55 in fees and costs.

     4.    Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony on Causation

           In a motion in limine, Jack's moved to limit testimony

from treating physicians because the Dahlagers "chose not to

submit any expert report regarding what injuries they believe

were caused by the fall at Jack's Diving Locker on July 25,

2012."    Jack's also explained that it requested copies of

medical records related to the treatment of injuries Robert

                                 10
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

claims were sustained at Jack's, but the Dahlagers instead

"identified particular medical establishments[.]"

            Jack's argued that given the nondisclosure of expert

reports, treating physicians should be precluded from testifying

as to causation.    The circuit court granted Jack's motion,

ruling that "[a]ny experts called by [the Dahlagers], and there

are no expert reports, will be excluded from testifying as to

causation."

     5.     Bench Trial

            The circuit court held a bench trial over the course

of three days with six witnesses testifying - Robert, Rob,

Grandson, Mary, Leicher, and Woerner.

            The circuit court entered its "Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law and Order after Jury-Waived Trial[,]"

concluding that "Jack's did not breach its duty of care to

Plaintiff [Robert] Dahlager" and the Dahlagers "failed to prove

by a preponderance of the evidence that any injury alleged was

legally or proximately caused by a defective chair on July 25,

2012."    COL 3 and 12.   The circuit court then entered its final

judgment in favor of Jack's and against the Dahlagers "as to all

claims in Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice[.]"

            Both parties timely appealed.

                                  11
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                 II.     DISCUSSION

              On appeal, the Dahlagers challenge the circuit court's

decisions regarding breach of duty and causation, sufficiency of

discovery sanctions, and exclusion of causation testimony by

treating experts.        In its cross-appeal, Jack's challenges the

circuit court's order to produce documents, finding of

spoliation, and award of attorney's fees and costs.               We affirm.

A.     Negligence - Breach and Causation Elements

              In their first point of error, the Dahlagers contend

that the circuit court "erred in ruling that [Jack's] did not

breach its duty of care to [Robert], and [Robert] failed to

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any alleged [sic]

was legally or proximately caused by a defective chair."

Specifically, the Dahlagers challenge COL 3 and 12. 7

              The elements of a negligence cause of action are:

              1. A duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring
                 the defendant to conform to a certain standard of
                 conduct, for the protection of others against
                 unreasonable risks;

              2. A failure on the defendant's part to conform to the
                 standard required: a breach of duty[;]
              3. A reasonably close causal connection between the conduct
                 and the resulting injury[;] and

       7   These COL state as follows:

              COL 3   "Defendant Jack's did not breach its duty of care to
                       Plaintiff [Robert] Dahlager."

              COL 12 "This Court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to prove by a
                      preponderance of the evidence that any injury alleged was
                      legally or proximately caused by a defective chair on
                      July 25, 2012."

                                          12
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          4. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of
             another[.]

Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel, Inc., 69 Haw. 376, 384-85, 742

P.2d 377, 383 (1987) (cleaned up).

          "Whether there was a breach of duty or not, i.e.,

whether there was a failure on the defendant's part to exercise

reasonable care, is a question for the trier of fact."             Doe

Parents No. 1 v. State of Hawai‘i, Dep't of Educ., 100 Hawai‘i 34,

57-58, 58 P.3d 545, 568-69 (2002) (emphasis omitted).              "[A]bsent

uncontroverted evidence from which only one inference can

reasonably be drawn, the questions of breach of duty and legal

causation constitute questions of fact, reviewable on appeal

only for clear error."    100 Hawai‘i at 58, 58 P.3d at 569.

     1.   Breach of Duty Element

          Challenging COL 3, the Dahlagers argue that Jack's

"negligently breached its duty of care by ignoring the

manufacturer's restrictions of use, and by failing to warn its

customers of the cheap, flimsy chair's limitations."          "The

additional fact that [it] removed the warnings for its patrons

and guests only compounded [its] breach of duty to warn."

          At trial, the Dahlagers introduced evidence that a

chair substantially similar to the chair Robert used warned

against use on uneven, wet, or slippery surfaces; listed a

                                   13
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

maximum weight capacity of 250 pounds; and was intended for

residential use only.

           However, the circuit court's findings support COL 3.

The circuit court found Robert weighed approximately 220-230

pounds at the time of the incident, which was below the chair's

250-pound weight limit.   FOF 33.     The circuit court also found

that the Dahlagers did not offer evidence to establish that the

commercial use of the chair created an unsafe condition.

FOF 39.   Moreover, there was conflicting evidence whether the

area Robert was sitting in was wet at the time of the incident,

and the Dahlagers offered no evidence that pooling of water

"caused the chair to buckle and collapse."      FOF 52, 61.

Finally, the circuit court found that Robert was sitting in the

chair for about an hour before the fall.      FOF 5.

           The Dahlagers did not challenge these findings in

their points of error and, thus, these findings are binding on

this court.   See Okada Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97

Hawai‘i 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82 (2002) (noting unchallenged

findings of fact are binding on the appellate courts).        Based on

these unchallenged findings, the Dahlagers failed to establish

that Jack's use of the chair posed an unreasonable risk of harm

as related to the manufacturer's warnings.

           The Dahlagers also argue that, "[a]s part of their

[sic] mode of operations and marketing strategy, [Jack's]

                                 14
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

invited relatives and friends of customers taking scuba lessons

to sit in plastic chairs on the wet pool deck and observe the

lessons."

            The Hawai‘i Supreme Court adopted the mode of operation

rule in Gump:

            where a plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the business
            proprietor adopted a marketing method or mode of operation
            in which a dangerous condition is reasonably foreseeable
            and the proprietor fails to take reasonable action to
            discover and remove the dangerous condition, the injured
            party may recover without showing actual notice or
            constructive knowledge of the specific instrumentality of
            the accident.

Gump v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Hawai‘i 417, 420, 5 P.3d 407,

410 (2000).

            We note that the supreme court limited the mode of

operation rule to circumstances such as that case.            See Gump, 93

Hawai‘i at 421, 5 P.3d at 411 (explaining that "the rule is

limited to circumstances such as those of this case.            Wal-Mart

chooses, as a marketing strategy, to lease store space to

McDonald's in order to attract more customers and encourage them

to remain in the store longer.        Wal-Mart also chooses, for the

most part, not to prevent patrons from carrying their McDonald's

food into the Wal-Mart shopping area.         This mode of operation

gave rise to the hazard that caused Gump's injury").            This

situation is unlike that in Gump.

            We further note that the dangerous condition the

Dahlagers asserted at trial was the defective condition of the

                                     15
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

chair, that is, the narrow gap between the chair's back legs and

its material that could become brittle if exposed to the sun.

But, the Dahlagers presented no evidence that the claimed

dangerousness of the chair was reasonably foreseeable and that

Jack's failed to take reasonable action to discover the

dangerousness and remove the chair.    See generally, Fredrickson

v. Bertolino's Tacoma, Inc., 127 P.3d 5, 9-10 (Wash. Ct.

App. 2005) (declining to extend Washington's mode of operation

exception to a collapsed chair incident where plaintiff did not

establish, "that the danger of breaking chairs was continuous or

foreseeably inherent in the nature of" defendant's business).

          In sum, the circuit court's conclusion that Jack's did

not breach its duty of care to Robert was not erroneous.

     2.   Causation Element

          Challenging COL 12, the Dahlagers argue that the

circuit court erred in ruling that they "failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that any alleged [sic] was legally

or proximately caused by a defective chair."

          However, COL 12 was supported by the circuit court's

unchallenged findings.   The circuit court found that the

Dahlagers "did not introduce evidence of a causal link between

the alleged defective condition of the Subject Chair and

Mr. Dahlager's fall" and that x-rays taken the day of the

                                 16
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

incident showed Robert's old back injuries "but no new

injuries."    FOF 27(a), 47.

            The Dahlagers further contend the doctrine of res ipsa

loquitur is applicable to the instant case.

            "Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence

when the thing that produced a person's injury is under the

control and management of the defendant, and the injury could

not have occurred in the ordinary course of events but for the

defendant's failure to exercise due care."     Winfrey v. GGP Ala

Moana LLC, 130 Hawai‘i 262, 272, 308 P.3d 891, 901 (2013)

(citation omitted).    However, the doctrine is not applicable

"[w]here an accident could have occurred in the normal course

without negligence, or where two equally plausible inferences

can be drawn as to whether the accident was caused by

negligence[.]"    Id. at 272-73, 308 P.3d at 901-02 (citation

omitted).

            Here, the Dahlagers failed to meet their burden of

showing that Robert's fall could not have occurred but for

Jack's failure to exercise due care.     See id. at 273, 308 P.3d

at 902.   In its findings, the circuit court recounted Robert's

extensive medical history that included falls and difficulties

with balance, and that Robert was sitting in the chair for

approximately an hour before the incident.     FOF 5, 26-27.    In

                                 17
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

light of these unchallenged findings, the Dahlagers did not

prove the elements of res ipsa loquitur.

             In sum, the circuit court did not clearly err in

determining that the Dahlagers failed to prove that Jack's

breached its duty of care and that breach was the cause of

Robert's injuries.

B.     Discovery Rulings

             Both the Dahlagers' second point of error and Jack's

cross-appeal stem from the circuit court's orders granting the

Dahlagers' request for discovery sanctions against Jack's for

failing to preserve the chair and withholding the Watanabe and

PADI reports.

       1.    The Dahlagers' Arguments

             a.   Default Judgment

             Specifically, the Dahlagers challenge the circuit

court's refusal to enter a "default judgment on liability" for

spoliation of the subject chair and the late disclosure of the

Watanabe and PADI reports.

             "[T]he circuit court has wide-ranging authority to

impose sanctions for the spoliation of evidence."         Stender v.

Vincent, 92 Hawai‘i 355, 362, 992 P.2d 50, 57 (2000).         HRCP

Rule 37(b)(2) "allows the court to 'make such orders . . . as

are just,' including the dismissal of claims, in response to

discovery violations."      Id. (citation omitted).     "In addition to

                                     18
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

this rule, the circuit court also 'has the inherent power . . .

to fashion a remedy to cure prejudice suffered by one party as a

result of another party's loss or destruction of evidence.'"

Id. (cleaned up).

           Still, dismissals and default judgments under HRCP

Rule 37 are drastic sanctions only authorized in extreme

circumstances.   See W.H. Shipman, Ltd. v. Hawaiian Holiday

Macadamia Nut Co., 8 Haw. App. 354, 361, 802 P.2d 1203, 1207

(1990).   Extreme sanctions, including default judgment, should

be supported by "evidence of willful or contemptuous or

otherwise opprobrious behavior[.]"    See Weinberg v. Dickson-

Weinberg, 123 Hawai‘i 68, 76-77, 229 P.3d 1133, 1141-42 (2010).

           Based on the record in this case, the circuit court

did not abuse its discretion in its sanction order, including

its refusal to enter default against Jack's.     The circuit court

found Jack's breached its duty to preserve the chair and

sanctioned it for spoliation by precluding it from "contending

that the chair involved in the accident was not defective or

damaged prior to, and at the time [Robert] sat in it."

           Moreover, although conflicting evidence pertaining to

the handling of the chair arose from the Watanabe Report and

Jack's took the position that the Watanabe Report was work

product, Jack's disclosed the existence of the Watanabe Report

and PADI Incident Report over a year before the Dahlagers filed

                                 19
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

a motion to compel production of the reports.      And we note the

Dahlagers' motion to compel production of the reports was filed

less than three months before trial.      Further, Jack's turned

over the reports after the matter was litigated and the circuit

court ruled in the Dahlagers' favor.      Finally, the Dahlagers did

not point to any evidence in the record of "willful or

contemptuous or otherwise opprobrious behavior" by Jack's.       See

Weinberg, 123 Hawai‘i at 77, 229 P.3d at 1142.

          Thus, the circuit court's sanction against Jack's was

within the court's wide-ranging authority to impose sanctions.

          b.   Adverse Inference

          The circuit court also did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to enter an adverse inference of negligence against

Jack's for discovery violations.      HRCP Rule 37(b)(2)(B) allows

the court to sanction a party who fails to obey an order to

provide or permit discovery by issuing "[a]n order refusing to

allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated

claims or defenses, or prohibiting him or her from introducing

designated matters in evidence[.]"

          Here, the circuit court sanctioned Jack's for

spoliation of the subject chair by precluding it from opposing

the Dahlagers' claim that the subject chair was damaged or

defective at the time of the incident.      This sanction was

                                 20
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

warranted because the circuit court found Jack's breached its

duty to preserve the subject chair.

            Given the overall record in this case, we cannot say

that the court abused its discretion by refusing to enter an

adverse inference of negligence against Jack's.

            c.       Findings of No Expert Testimony

            The Dahlagers argue that the circuit court's "emphasis

on the presentation of expert testimony to prove negligence was

itself error" and point to FOF 34, 37, 39, 42, and 57. 8              The

Dahlagers rely on the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 702.

            HRE Rule 702 provides:

            If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
            will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
            to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an
            expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

     8   These FOF state as follows:

            FOF 34    "Plaintiffs did not offer expert testimony to establish
                      that the Subject Chair was unsafe for Mr. Dahlager
                      because of the 250-lb weight limit."

            FOF 37    "Plaintiffs did not offer expert testimony to establish
                      that the Subject Chair was unsafe for Mr. Dahlager
                      because of the narrowness of the gap between the chair's
                      legs."

            FOF 39    "Plaintiffs did not offer expert or lay testimony, or any
                      other evidence to establish that Jack's commercial use of
                      the Subject Chair created an unsafe condition or caused
                      Mr. Dahlager's fall."

            FOF 42    "Plaintiffs did not offer expert testimony at trial to
                      establish that the Subject Chair was or could have been
                      unsafe at the time of Mr. Dahlager's fall as a result of
                      having been left out in the sun and heat."

            FOF 57    "Plaintiffs did not offer expert testimony regarding the
                      safety issues involved with the Subject Chair under
                      circumstances where the pool deck at Jack's could be
                      wet."

                                       21
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
          otherwise. In determining the issue of assistance to the
          trier of fact, the court may consider the trustworthiness
          and validity of the scientific technique or mode of
          analysis employed by the proffered expert.

HRE Rule 702.   "[T]he touchstones of admissibility for expert

testimony under HRE Rule 702 are relevance and reliability."

State v. Vliet, 95 Hawai‘i 94, 106, 19 P.3d 42, 54 (2001).

"[W]here the issues are within the common knowledge of the [fact

finder], expert testimony is unnecessary."        Brown v. Clark

Equip. Co., 62 Haw. 530, 537, 618 P.2d 267, 272 (1980).           But,

"[e]xpert testimony may be needed in actions involving injury

from a dangerous condition on a commercial property, such as

that involving a deck, porch, patio or similar structure."             194

Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d § 275 (2022).

          Expert testimony may have been helpful in assisting

the court to determine if the chair was not safe for Robert.

Expert testimony on the chair's weight limit (FOF 34),

narrowness of the gap between the legs of the chair (FOF 37),

effects of the weather on the chair (FOF 42), and use of the

chair under the conditions of the pool deck (FOF 57) could have

assisted the circuit court in determining the chair's safety and

understanding the chair's design.       Similarly, expert testimony

on the commercial use of the chair (FOF 39) could have assisted

the circuit court in determining whether the chair was unsafe

and caused Robert's injuries.

                                   22
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

              Making findings on the lack of expert testimony was

within the court's discretion and does not warrant a new trial.

      2.      Jack's Cross-appeal

              As mentioned, the circuit court granted the Dahlagers'

motions to compel, ordered Jack's to produce the Watanabe and

PADI reports, sanctioned Jack's for destroying the chair, and

ordered Jack's to pay $20,037.55 in related attorney's fees and

costs.     In its cross-appeal, Jack's asserts that the circuit

court abused its discretion, contending the court failed to

address HRCP Rule 26(b)(4) and the related work product

doctrine. 9

              The appellate courts give deference to the trial

court's decision to grant discovery.         See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l

Title Ins. Co., 137 Hawai‘i 104, 111, 366 P.3d 160, 167 (2016).

              a. PADI Incident Report

              Before the circuit court, Jack's asserted that the

"only purpose in preparing the PADI Incident Report that has

been withheld as privileged was to facilitate the rendition of

legal services if Mr. Dahlager filed suit.          It was prepared with

the expectation that its contents would be kept confidential,

      9  In Jack's memorandum in opposition to, and the January 24, 2017
hearing on, the Dahlagers' motion to compel, Jack's appears to assert that
the PADI and Watanabe reports were both protected under the attorney-client
privilege and as work product. Jack's, however, analyzed the PADI Incident
Report as protected under attorney-client privilege, and the Watanabe Report
as work product, in its memorandum in opposition. In determining whether
Jack's met its burden and whether the circuit court abused its discretion, we
address the issues as Jack's presented in its analysis to the circuit court.

                                     23
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and provided to counsel."       Jack's argued that the PADI Incident

Report fell within the attorney-client privilege.

            To support its position, Jack's provided a declaration

from Leicher, which stated that the PADI Report was prepared by

Woerner on the same day as the incident and faxed to PADI, who

would provide it to an attorney should there be a lawsuit:

            At my direction, I had Andy Woerner, an instructor for
            Jack's Diving Locker, complete a PADI Incident Report on
            July 25, 2012. The 4 page report was then faxed to PADI to
            be provided to our attorney in the event that a lawsuit was
            filed. The report was specifically prepared for counsel,
            and is labelled "Incident Report Form This Report Is
            Prepared In Anticipation Of Litigation". When Jack's
            Diving Locker submitted the PADI Incident Report, it was
            with the expectation that the contents would be kept
            confidential, and provided to counsel assigned to defend
            us. As a certified PADI facility, Jack's Diving Locker is
            insured through a policy obtained through PADI, which is
            providing the defense to Jack's Diving Locker in this case.

            Jack's also provided a declaration from Michael D.

Treacy (Treacy), which stated that PADI requests its insureds to

complete an incident report whenever an event may result in

litigation, and the report would be forwarded to counsel when a

suit is filed:

            A claims file was opened for this matter upon submission of
            a PADI Incident Report from Jack's Diving Locker. PADI
            insureds are requested to prepare an incident report
            whenever an event occurs which may result in litigation.
            The PADI incident report is forwarded to defense counsel,
            once suit is filed.

The circuit court ordered that the PADI Incident Report be

produced.

                                     24
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          The rule on attorney-client privilege provides in

part:

          A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to
          prevent any other person from disclosing confidential
          communications made for the purpose of facilitating the
          rendition of professional legal services to the client

          (1) between the client or the client's representative and
              the lawyer or the lawyer's representative, or

          (2) between the lawyer and the lawyer's representative, or

          (3) by the client or the client's representative or the
              lawyer or a representative of the lawyer to a lawyer or
              a representative of a lawyer representing another party
              in a pending action and concerning a matter of common
              interest, or

          (4) between representatives of the client or between the
              client and a representative of the client, or

          (5) among lawyers and their representatives representing
              the same client.

HRE Rule 503(b) (formatting altered).

          This "privilege is bottomed on assumptions that

lawyers can act effectively only if they are fully advised of

the facts by the parties they represent and disclosure will be

promoted if the client knows that what he tells his lawyer

cannot be extorted from the lawyer."       DiCenzo v. Izawa, 68 Haw.

528, 535, 723 P.2d 171, 175 (1986) (cleaned up).          But since this

privilege may suppress relevant evidence and forestall truth

seeking, it "must be strictly limited to the purpose for which

it exists."   Id. (citation omitted).

          The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has explained that it has

"serious doubts about the advisability of making statements

taken by an insurance investigator or adjuster immune from

                                   25
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

discovery as a matter of policy."     DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at 537, 723

P.2d at 177 (cleaned up).   "For the internal documents of

insurance companies obtained in the normal course of business

relating to the claims of their insureds would then be shielded

from discovery, and we would be creating a new privilege

(insured-insurer) or extending a statutory privilege beyond its

intended reach."   68 Haw. at 537-38, 723 P.2d at 177 (cleaned

up).

          Here, Jack's bore the burden of showing the PADI

Incident Report was protected by attorney-client privilege.       See

Sapp v. Wong, 62 Haw. 34, 38, 609 P.2d 137, 140 (1980)

(explaining that "[p]roper practice requires preliminary

judicial inquiry into the existence and validity of the

privilege and the burden of establishing the privilege rests on

the claimant").

          The Leicher declaration made blanket statements that

the PADI report was, and Jack's expected it to be, confidential.

But Leicher did not provide specific facts showing the report

was covered by attorney-client privilege.     And although Leicher

and Treacy indicated the report would make its way to an

attorney should a suit be filed, Jack's sent the report to PADI

and there was no evidence that PADI acted as Jack's lawyer or

the lawyer's representative.    HRE Rule 503(a)(4) ("A

                                 26
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

'representative of the lawyer' is one directed by the lawyer to

assist in the rendition of professional legal services").

          To the extent Leicher's declaration implies that PADI

is Jack's representative because PADI is providing a defense for

Jack's, a similar situation occurred in DiCenzo.      68 Haw. at

534, 723 P.2d at 174; HRE Rule 503(a)(2) ("A 'representative of

the client' is one having authority to obtain professional legal

services, or to act on advice rendered pursuant thereto, on

behalf of the client").

          In DiCenzo, "[t]he trial court ruled . . . that the

statements made by Defendant Helen M. Izawa to her insurance

company are privileged under" HRE Rule 503.     DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at

534, 723 P.2d at 174 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Overturning the trial court's ruling, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court

explained, "[w]ere we to uphold the privilege under these

circumstances, any report or statement made by an insured person

to an investigator or adjustor employed or retained by the

insurer would be within the attorney-client privilege as a

matter of law."   68 Haw. at 536-37, 723 P.2d at 176.     The

supreme court declined to adopt the holdings of other courts

"that the insured may properly assume the communication was made

to the insurer as an agent for the dominant purpose of

transmitting it to an attorney for the protection of the

interest of the insured" since the insurer selects the attorney

                                 27
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and conducts the defense.     DiCenzo, 68 Haw. at 537, 723 P.2d at

176 (cleaned up).

          Based on the evidence it presented to the circuit

court, Jack's did not meet its burden of showing that the PADI

Incident Report fell within the attorney-client privilege.

Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting

the Dahlagers' motion to compel production of the PADI Incident

Report.

          b.      Watanabe Report

          Before the circuit court, Jack's asserted that "the

purpose of the investigative report being requested was to

assist in litigation" and that the report "was requested only

after the Dahlager's [sic] themselves had an attorney contact

Jack's . . . ."    Jack's argued that the Dahlagers had "not

established a substantial need for the investigative report" and

"[t]he fact that [Jack's] no longer has the subject chair also

should not be a basis for requiring production of the

investigative report."

          In support of its position, Jack's attached the Treacy

declaration, which stated the sequence of events leading to the

creation of the Watanabe Report:

          On September 11, 2012, Ada De La Cruz of York Insurance
          Services Group, engaged the services of ICS Merrill, EMSI
          Investigative Services Division to conduct an investigation
          on [Robert's] claims. Prior to the request being made,
          attorney Ian Mattoch had submitted a letter of
          representation, dated August 28, 2012. Investigator Earl
          Watanabe of ICS Merrill prepared a confidential

                                    28
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          investigative report, dated October 9, 2012, concerning
          [Robert's] claim. The investigative report of Earl
          Watanabe is labeled, "This Confidential Report Is Submitted
          In Anticipation Of Future Litigation. It Is And Should
          Always Be Considered Attorney/Client Work Product."

The circuit court granted the Dahlagers' motion to compel and

ordered Jack's to produce the Watanabe Report.

          Jack's bore the burden of showing that the Watanabe

Report was work product.     See Roy v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 152

Hawai‘i 225, 239, 524 P.3d 1249, 1263 (App. 2023) (explaining

that "the burden of establishing work product protection lies

with the proponent, and it must be specifically raised and

demonstrated rather than asserted in a blanket fashion")

(citation omitted).

          HRCP Rule 26 governs work product, and provides in

relevant part as follows:

          A party may obtain discovery of documents, electronically
          stored information, and tangible things otherwise
          discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this Rule and
          prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or
          for another party or by or for that other party's
          representative (including the other party's attorney,
          consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only
          upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has
          substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the
          party's case and that the party is unable without undue
          hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the
          materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such
          materials when the required showing has been made, the
          court shall protect against disclosure of the mental
          impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an
          attorney or other representative of a party concerning the
          litigation.

HRCP Rule 26(b)(4) (emphases added).

                                   29
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           "[T]he relevant inquiry for determining whether a

document can be protected by work product doctrine is whether

the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation or

trial."   Anastasi, 137 Hawai‘i at 113-14, 366 P.3d at 169-70.

And "[m]ost courts have recognized that an insurance carrier's

investigation of a claim is generally performed in the ordinary

course of business and not protected by work product doctrine."

Id. at 114, 366 P.3d at 170.

           Hawai‘i courts have adopted the "because of" test in

situations where a document serves more than one purpose or "was

not prepared exclusively for litigation."     Id. at 113, 366 P.3d

at 169; see also Moe v. Sys. Transp., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 613, 625

(D. Mont. 2010) (noting the "because of" standard often applies

to insurance claims investigations).     "In applying the 'because

of' standard, courts must consider the totality of the

circumstances and determine whether the 'document was created

because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been

created in substantially similar form but for the prospect of

litigation.'"   Anastasi, 137 Hawai‘i at 113, 366 P.3d at 169.

           The Treacy declaration set forth the sequence of

events - Mattoch sent a letter of representation on August 28,

2012, the insurer engaged the services of an investigator on

September 11, 2012, and Watanabe prepared a report dated

October 9, 2012.   The Treacy declaration also restated that the

                                 30
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

report itself was labeled, "This Confidential Report Is

Submitted In Anticipation Of Future Litigation.      It Is And

Should Always Be Considered Attorney/Client Work Product."

          Other than providing the order of events and restating

the report's self-labeling, the Treacy declaration does not

provide any insight as to the purpose of the Watanabe Report,

whether it was created "because of" litigation, or that it would

not have been created in the ordinary course of business.        See

Anastasi, 137 Hawai‘i at 114, 366 P.3d at 170 ("Nowhere in the

rule is there reference to when a document is prepared.

Instead, the rule clearly focuses on the purpose of the prepared

material and not on when it is prepared").

          Moreover, the Treacy declaration makes no statement as

to whether the Watanabe Report contains "the mental impressions,

conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other

representative of a party concerning the litigation."      See HRCP

Rule 26(b)(4) (providing that "the court shall protect against

disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or

legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party

concerning litigation").

          Based on the evidence it presented to the circuit

court, Jack's failed to meet its burden of showing that the

Watanabe Report was not subject to production under the rules of

                                 31
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

discovery.    Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion

in ordering production of the Watanabe Report.

            c.    Spoliation of the Chair

            Jack's also argues that the court based its spoliation

finding on the contents of the Watanabe Report, which was not

authenticated and contained inadmissible hearsay.

            Here, in moving for sanctions, the Dahlagers offered,

among other things, the Watanabe Report to show the chairs were

returned to Walmart. 10

            During the hearing on the Dahlagers' request for

sanctions, the circuit court stated that the "subject chair was

returned to [Walmart] and only discovered through the Court's --

well as the Court ordered the Motion to Compel."            The circuit

court continued, "there's no dispute that the subject chair is

not available at this time" and the Dahlagers "will be suffering

prejudice as a result of [Jack's] destroying or withholding the

discovery evidence, the chair."        The circuit court then ruled

that "inequity would occur in allowing [Jack's] in this case

[to] accrue benefit from its conduct in destroying the chair."

            The circuit court subsequently ordered that Jack's

"will be precluded from opposing or claiming that nothing was

      10 The Dahlagers proffer that the circuit court had "the [Walmart]
receipts produced in discovery showing that all 10 of the chairs purchased on
June 8, 2012 had been returned on July 26, 2012[.]" But, the return receipt
shows only "General Mdse" was returned with no specific description of item
or quantity.

                                     32
     NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

wrong with the chair, because Plaintiffs have not had an

opportunity to inspect the chair."       The circuit court awarded

the Dahlagers attorney's fees and costs related to the two

motions to compel.

             Ultimately, there was no dispute Jack's destroyed the

chair, which was key evidence in this case.        And Jack's was on

notice that litigation arising from Robert's fall from the chair

was a possibility.

             Based on the particular circumstances in this case, we

cannot conclude that error, if any, in relying on the Watanabe

Report injuriously affected Jack's substantial rights.         Hawaii

Revised Statutes § 641-2 (2016) (providing in part that "[n]o

judgment, order or decree shall be reversed, amended, or

modified for any error or defect, unless the court is of the

opinion that it has injuriously affected the substantial rights

of the appellant").

C.     Precluding Causation Testimony by Treatment Providers

             In their third point of error, the Dahlagers contend

the circuit court abused its discretion "in granting [Jack's]

Motion to Limit Testimony from Treating Physicians, sustaining

[Jack's] objections to opinion testimony by [Mary] based on this

ruling, and denying [the Dahlagers'] Oral Motion to Reconsider

its ruling."     The Dahlagers specifically maintain they were

unable to prove a defective chair legally caused the injury

                                    33
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

because the court limited testimony from Robert's non-retained

treating physicians because the Dahlagers did not provide

written expert reports by the court's deadline.

          "The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has held that complete and

accurate pretrial discovery of expert witnesses is critical to a

fair trial."    Barbee v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 119 Hawai‘i 136, 157,

194 P.3d 1098, 1119 (App. 2008) (cleaned up).      "Pretrial

disclosure of expert witnesses is necessary because effective

cross-examination of an expert witness requires advance

preparation."    Id. (cleaned up).    Also, HRCP Rule 26, "is

designed to promote candor and fairness in the pretrial

discovery process and to eliminate surprises at trial."        Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

          Here, the circuit court ordered the Dahlagers to

provide written expert reports by November 10, 2016, giving the

Dahlagers almost nine months to obtain expert reports.      The

Dahlagers, however, did not do so.      Jack's contended that the

Dahlagers' failure to provide expert reports and medical records

related to the fall deprived it of critical information needed

to prepare for cross-examination of these experts.

          To be clear, Robert's treating physicians were not

completely precluded from testifying.      They were only precluded

from testifying as to the cause of Robert's injuries.

                                 34
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

            Further, as Jack's asserts, Robert's medical records

were admitted into evidence.        Regarding certain records from

Kaiser, the circuit court found that those records made no

mention of the fall at Jack's.

            As to Mary's testimony, the circuit court found Mary

"qualified as an expert in the area of physical therapy."             When

the Dahlagers' counsel attempted to solicit Mary's expert

opinion regarding the cause of Robert's injury, the circuit

court cautioned counsel "about the motion in limine regarding

providing any type of opinion when there's no report submitted."

            The Dahlagers' counsel then attempted to ask Mary

about causation and treatment of Robert's injury after the

incident at Jack's.      Jack's objected, and the circuit court

sustained, informing the Dahlagers' counsel that Mary "should

have submitted a report as to her treatment and the reasons

why."   The court warned:

            You cannot use the back door to try to get in reports of
            what she knew and how she treated [Robert] when in fact
            there were specific instructions in this case and orders by
            this court that if you're gonna call someone as an expert
            that you need to submit the reports by November 10, 2016[.]

            Under the court's order, Mary should have provided a

report if she was being held out as an expert who provided

Robert treatment and was going to testify as to the cause of his

injuries.

                                     35
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          In sum, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion

in limiting the testimony of treatment providers as to

causation.

                          III. CONCLUSION

          Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

(1) August 16, 2017 Final Judgment; (2) June 2, 2017 "Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order After Jury-Waived

Trial"; (3) February 17, 2017 "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion

to Compel Production of Documents filed December 27, 2016";

(4) March 1, 2017 "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel

Discovery and for Discovery Sanctions filed January 13, 2017";

(5) March 23, 2017 "Order Granting Fees and Costs Related to

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed

December 27, 2016"; and (6) March 23, 2017 "Order Granting Fees

and Costs Related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery and

for Discovery Sanctions filed January 13, 2017[.]"

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 26, 2023.

On the briefs:                        /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
                                      Chief Judge
Scott E. Kubota,
Christopher S. Bouslog,               /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiffs-Appellants/            Associate Judge
Cross-Appellees.
                                      /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Gary G. Grimmer,                      Associate Judge
Ann Correa,
for Defendant-Appellee/
Cross-Appellant.

                                 36