Supreme Court Decision - Alaska Department of Law

A superior court’s imposition of sanctions under Alaska Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b) for a party’s failure to comply with a discovery order is also reviewed
7
for abuse of discretion. But we use our independent judgment to decide the legal issue
8
whether Civil Rule 37(b)(2) applies to a given fact situation. A superior court’s
discretion to impose liability-establishing sanctions is limited. 9
Whether Lee violated the temporary restraining order is a mixed question
of law and fact. We review the superior court’s factual findings under the clearly
10 11
erroneous standard. We review questions of law de novo.
B. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion when It Granted
the State’s Motion To Compel Discovery.
The superior court ordered Lee to answer some of the state’s interrogatories
and to produce some of the documents requested. Lee argues that the court erred in
compelling discovery because (1) the state was pursuing irrelevant information; (2) he
tried to comply with the discovery requests; (3) he requested a protective order; and (4)
the discovery order should have included specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We find no merit in these contentions.
First, the superior court did not compel irrelevant discovery. Lee argues
that the court’s relevancy determination should have been based on “the pleadings as
filed.” (Emphasis omitted.) Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides:
7
8
9
10
DeNardo v. ABC Inc. RVs Motorhomes, 51 P.3d 919, 922 (Alaska 2002).
McGilvary v. Hansen, 897 P.2d 605, 606 n.2 (Alaska 1995).
Id.
DeNardo, 51 P.3d at 992.
11
Webb v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div. ex rel.
Webb, 120 P.3d 197, 198 (Alaska 2005).
-6- 6033