Discovery – Sanctions

hannahhoffman//May 5, 2014//

Listen to this article

On appeal from the District Court’s dismissal of various tort and quasi-contract claims arising from a real-estate-conveyance dispute, appellant argued that the District Court abused its discretion by (1) dismissing with prejudice its claims as a sanction for noncompliance with discovery orders and (2) denying its motion for a vacated judgment or a new trial when appellant asserted errors of law and excusable neglect. Appellant argued that the law mandates that the District Court issue an order compelling discovery and outlining potential discovery sanctions before it may exercise its discretion to dismiss a claim under rule 37.02. The Court of Appeals noted that none of the numerous cases that appellant cited stood for this proposition. Further fatal to its argument, the cases on which appellant relied were inapposite. Affirmed.

A13-1413 OSEMI, Inc. v. Red Wing Port Auth. (Goodhue County)

Click for Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event