Gary Devaney, D/B/A Devaney Logging Company v. Continental American Insurance Company Daniel M. Speer, D/B/A Speer Holt Insurance, Tom E. Ellis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the civil rule on discovery sanctions does not require trial court to make specific finding that attorney instigated discovery misconduct before imposing sanctions upon attorney
• noting that “[t]he rule was toughened in 1970 to mandate that expenses be awarded unless the conduct of the losing party or person is found to have been substantially justified.”
• noting that “[t]he rule was toughened in 1970 to mandate that expenses be awarded unless the conduct of the losing party or person is found to have been substantially justified.”
• explaining that Rule 37 identifies multiple parties, including clients and their attorneys, “as possible subjects of sanctions . . . and vests the trial court with broad discretion to apportion fault between them”
• explaining that a magistrate judge had discretion under the language of Rule 37 to impose fees against an attorney even though a motion for sanctions on its face sought fees 28 against the party itself
• explaining that “an individual’s discovery conduct should be found ‘substantially justified’ under Rule 87 if it is a response to a genuine dispute, or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).