Court dismisses claim after inadequate discovery compliance; confirms party must document expert's anticipated testimony
It is a common tactic of parties in litigation to provide vague and responsive answers to discovery requests. Among the tactics frequently relied upon is the claim that a party does not yet know what testimony a disclosed expert witness may offer. In Pagura v. McNeely Law Office, the Court of Appeals re-confirmed that a case can be dismissed where a litigant has repeatedly provided inadequate discovery responses. The Court also confirmed that a party cannot disclose a potential expert witnesses' name and then argue that the witnesses' testimony is not yet known to the litigant.