Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery in Wisconsin

Background

“In our adversary system, pretrial discovery is designed to formulate, define and narrow the issues to be tried, increase the chances for settlement, and give each party opportunity to fully inform himself [or herself] of the facts of the case and the evidence which may come out at trial.” (See Crawford v. Care Concepts, Inc. (2001) 243 Wis. 2d 119, 127.)

“Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) permits the court to impose a variety of sanctions upon a party who fails to comply with a discovery order.” (See In re Estate of Glass (1978) 85 Wis. 2d 126, 146.)

“While a court has the authority to impose sanctions on a party for failure to comply with an order to compel issued under subsection (1), a court has the authority to sanction a party for failure to comply with any discovery order, regardless of whether there has been an order to compel.” (See State v. L. M.-N. (In re Termination Parental Rights to J. North) (2015) WI App. 90.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A range of sanction is available, including dismissal of an action or any part thereof.” (See Selmer Co. v. Rinn (2010) 328 Wis. 2d 263, 287.)

“Before ordering dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation, a court must find that the noncompliant party acted egregiously or in bad faith.” (See Turner v. Bounce Back LLC (2019) 926 N.W.2d 510.)

“Egregious conduct consists of a conscious attempt to affect the outcome of litigation or a flagrant knowing disregard of the judicial process.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Circuit courts have discretion to impose sanctions for discovery abuses.” (See Welch v. Jackson (2007) 731 N.W.2d 382.)

“Sanctions are appropriate if the record contains a reasonable basis for a circuit court's determination that the [sanctioned] conduct was egregious and that there was no clear and justifiable excuse.” (See Welch v. Jackson (2007) 731 N.W.2d 382.)

“A discretionary decision will be sustained if the circuit court has examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.” (See Imposition of Sanctions in Alt v. Cline (1999) 224 Wis. 2d 72, 92.)

“We will uphold a discovery sanction as long as the record shows the court applied the proper legal standard to the relevant facts using a demonstrated rational process to reach a reasonable conclusion.”  (Selmer Co. v. Rinn (2010) 328 Wis. 2d 263, 287.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “[a] circuit court has both inherent authority and statutory authority under Wis. Stat. subsections 802.10(7), 804.12(2)(a), and 805.03 to sanction parties for failing to obey court orders.” (See State v. L. M.-N. (In re Termination Parental Rights to J. North (2015) WI App. 90.)

It is also well settled that “if the deponent fails to comply with an order to provide or permit discovery, e.g., fails to answer a deposition question, the court may impose various sanctions including the imposition of reasonable expenses.” (See Imposition of Sanctions in Alt v. Cline (1999) 224 Wis. 2d 72, 93.)