Luckeett v. Bodner
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by not permitting withdrawal of admissions when party failed to respond to the requests where merits would be served by withdrawal and the other parties would not be prejudiced.
Parker v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund
Trial court properly exercised discretion is allowing defendant to add an expert witness after the deadline. The excusable neglect standard of §801.15(2) does not apply to untimely motions to enlarge scheduling orders deadlines. Rather, Wis. Stats. §802.10 applies.
In Re Marriage of Halko v. Halko
While a trial court has authority to dismiss a UIFSA action for discovery violations, the law requires a finding of egregious conduct by the violating party as a prerequisite to the severe penalty of dismissal.
In Re Marriage of Winters v. Winters
Trial court properly denied discovery requests which exceeded the bounds reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
In Re Paternity of Dustine R.P.
Order prohibiting witness from testifying affirmed where father failed to name expert in violation of pretrial scheduling order. Trial court has inherent power to punish for failing to comply with pretrial order.
In Re Marriage of Gerrits v. Gerrits
Since wife waived claim for attorney fees, her fee arrangement is irrelevant and the trial court properly denied husband’s discovery requests.
Alexander v. Riegert
Court erred in not amending pretrial order to allow more witnesses where there had been a substitution of attorneys.
State v. Hedstrom
For failure to supplement witness list, continuance is appropriate sanction, but surprised party must show hardship.
Vincent & Vince, Inc. v. Spacek
Good cause established for a protective order – all interrogatories are, to some degree, burdensome and expensive. The issue is whether the burden and expense is justified in a particular case.
In Re Estate of Glass
Good cause established for a protective order – all interrogatories are, to some degree, burdensome and expensive. The issue is whether the burden and expense is justified in a particular case.
Furrenes v. Ford Motor Co.
Dismissal on merits for failure to comply with court’s discovery orders affirmed.
State ex rel. Dudek v. Circuit Court
Function of pretrial discovery is to aid, not hinder, the proper working of the adversary system.
Enos v. Baker
Discovery of law practice restricted. Client’s need for privacy is greater than need for marital economics and convenience.
Eyde v. Eyde
Discovery of business partnership documents allowed. Partners’ interest in confidentiality is protected by court’s order.
Van Meter v. Zimmer
Ex-wife’s joint income tax returns with her new husband are discoverable, rejecting argument about relevance and privacy.
Estevez v. Superior Court
Actor does not have to produce information relating to his finances because he his an “extraordinarily high income earner”. Requiring calculation of support under guidelines would be unnecessary, unduly burdensome and oppressive.
Estevez v. Superior Court
Discovery of high income parent would be unnecessary, burdensome and irrelevant where he agrees to pay any reasonable amount of child support.
Schnabel v. Orange County Superior Court
Court properly compelled close corporation to produce for discovery by the wife of an employee and minority shareholder its records and tax returns as well as the husband’s payroll records.