This case involves sanctions under Rule 26(g) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that an attorney’s signature on a discovery response is a certification that it is "consistent with the rules," and "not interposed for any improper purpose," and "not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive."
The Court determined that sanctions under Rule 26(g) are mandatory in the event of a violation, and that Rule 11 cases don’t have much relevance in a Rule 26(g) sanctions motion.
Plaintiff was sanctioned because its counsel had (1) designated one person (Wagner) as an expert "without an intention of having Wagner prepare any expert report containing his opinions and the basis therefore, (2) failing to make inquiry into Wagner’s qualifications to give any expert opinions, and (3) designating [another witness, Tarr] as an expert without even having communicated with Tarr." Op. ¶28.
Lawyers have a duty to cooperate in discovery in complex cases. Forthright discovery is particularly important, said Judge Tennille, when expert discovery is involved. He held that "[o]ur rules are designed to flush out what opinions are going to be expressed at trial so that challenges to those opinions can be heard pretrial without wasting the jurors’ time. Responses to discovery that comply with the rules save the parties and the courts substantial time and money." Op. ¶13.
Another factor leading to sanctions was Plaintiff’s counsel refusal to discuss matters with Defendant’s counsel. Judge Tennille said that ""[l]awyers have a responsibility and a duty to their clients, the Court, and opposing counsel to communicate openly and civilly with each other. A failure to do so is a breach of their professional duties and results in unnecessary delay and expense to the parties and the Court." Op. ¶32.