AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In June 1999, the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a rear-end collision. Following a settlement with the other driver in 2006, the plaintiff filed a claim under her UM/UIM policy with the defendant, which was not resolved to her satisfaction. Subsequently, she initiated a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging breach of insurance contract and unfair trade practices. The discovery process revealed the plaintiff's attorney and his employees as material witnesses, leading to a dispute over their depositions and ultimately the dismissal of the case for failure to comply with discovery orders (paras 2-4, 6-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that she had provided all necessary medical records to the defendant, fully cooperated with the claims process, and made herself available for any required medical inquiries. She contended that the defendant had no reasonable grounds to deny her claim (para 4).
• Defendant: Contended that they never received executed medical releases, supplemental medical records, or medical bills from the plaintiff, which were necessary to complete the evaluation of the claim. The defendant also sought to depose the plaintiff's attorney and his employees for their involvement in the claims process (paras 3, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's case for non-compliance with discovery orders.
• Whether the district court's actions regarding the depositions of the plaintiff's attorney and his employees were justified and did not violate attorney-client privilege (paras 8, 15).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case for intentional failure to provide discovery based on the refusal of the plaintiff's attorney and two of his employees to attend their depositions (para 1).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J., J. MILES HANISEE, J., concurring): The court held that the plaintiff's refusal to comply with discovery orders constituted a repeated and flagrant disregard for her discovery responsibilities. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as it had a duty to enforce compliance with the rules of discovery. The court also addressed the plaintiff's concerns regarding attorney-client privilege, noting that the district court had made provisions to protect privileged information during the depositions. The court emphasized the general disapproval of deposing a party's attorney but found it justified in this case due to the unique circumstances (paras 9-15).