“The primary purpose of the discovery rules is to facilitate the disclosure prior to trial of any unprivileged information that is relevant and material to the lawsuit so as to permit the narrowing and sharpening of the basic issues and facts that will require trial." (See Friday Invs., LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. (2017) 370 N.C. 235, 237-38.)
“General provisions governing discovery are set forth in Rule 26 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.” (See Sable v. Sable (2006) 177 N.C. App. 811.)
“Discovery methods include, inter alia, depositions, interrogatories, and production of or permission to inspect documents.” (See id.)
“Regarding the scope and limits of discovery, our Legislature has provided, in pertinent part, as follows: parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . .” (See id.)
“Rule 37(b)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a trial court to sanction a party for failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery.” (See Cunningham v. Sams (2004) 605 S.E.2d 741.)
"The sanction provision [of Rule 37] permits the court to make such orders as are just upon a party's failure to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including refusing to permit the disobedient party to introduce the matters in question into evidence." (See Bumgarner v. Reneau (1992) 332 N.C. 624, 631, 422 S.E.2d 686, 690.)
“Although sanctions can be severe, if they are among those expressly authorized by Rule 37, this Court cannot hold they constitute an abuse of discretion unless plaintiff shows specific evidence of injustice.” (See Brown v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (2003) 574 S.E.2d 715.)
“Rule 37 is not so broad, however, that it can be invoked whenever one party is frustrated with its adversary.” (See Powe v. Centerpoint Human Servs. (2013) 742 S.E.2d 218, 221.)
“The Rule is limited to remedying those instances in which a party fails to make discovery or comply with discovery orders during pre-trial proceedings.” (See id.)
“The trial court is given broad discretion to make such orders in regard to [a] failure as are just and authorized to, among other things, prohibit the introduction of certain evidence, strike pleadings, dismiss the action, or render judgment against the disobedient party.” (See Cunningham v. Sams (2004) 605 S.E.2d 741.)
“The trial judge has broad discretion in imposing sanctions under Rule 37.” (See id.)
“This Court will not overturn a sanctions ruling pursuant to Rule 37 absent a showing of abuse of that discretion.” (See id.)
“The test for abuse of discretion is whether a decision is manifestly unsupported by reason, or so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” (See id.)
It is well settled that “if a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, ... a judge of the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just. Among the sanctions enumerated in Rule 37 is an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders.” (See Arnold v. Ins. Co. of Pa. (2014) 768 S.E.2d 200.)
It is also well settled that “before dismissing a party's claim with prejudice pursuant to Rule 37, the trial court must consider less severe sanctions. The trial court is not required to impose lesser sanctions, but only to consider lesser sanctions." (See Cunningham v. Sams (2004) 605 S.E.2d 741.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
