Dietz v. Kautzman
v.
Robert A. Kautzman, Paul
Kautzman and Kautzman
Millwright, Inc., Defendants and Appellants
-----------
George A. Wyum, Kautzman
Family Trust, Valarie
Torgerson, and B. & G.
Enterprises, LLC, Defendants
-----------
Jonathan T. Garaas, Appellant
Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
| Appellant: | Garaas Law Firm | |
| Appellee: | Vogel Law Firm |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Were the Order Compelling Discovery of May 9, 2003 and the Order for Sanctions of July 18, 2003, too vague to support a finding of contempt [or Rule 37(b) sanctions] for the acts that Rachel complained about?
2. Did the lower court fail to make the prerequisite finding that its orders were willfully, or intentionally, disobeyed, and the facts of this case show that Robert, Paul, Millwright and Garaas fulfilled their duties to the lower court, or Rachel, as they understood their duties to be?
3. Is the July 18, 2003, assessment of $1,000.00 enforceable by contempt proceedings in that it is a debt, and debts are not contemplated to be enforced through the contempt powers by statute and court rule?
4. Can the October 8, 2003, order to pay $250.00 and the July 18, 2003, assessment of $1,000.00 be sustained as a remedial sanction for contempt?
5. Can the July 18, 2003, assessment of $1,000.00 be sustained under N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a) because Rachel did not bring a motion under said portion of Rule 37, and the lower court did not follow applicable procedures within the rule?
6. Did the assessment of $1,000.00 stem from a denial of the protections of discovery rules?
7. Is it an abuse of discretion to assess Garaas $1,000.00 without proper notice as to what wrongdoing he is accused, without submission of evidence of wrongdoing, and without findings of actual wrongdoing?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Are the trial court's orders compelling Robert Kautzman, Paul Kautzman and Kautzman Millwright to respond to Dietz's discovery requests appealable.
2. Did the district court properly compel Robert Kautzman, Paul Kautzman and Kautzman Millwright to answer Rachel Dietz's discovery requests.
3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering Robert Kautzman, Paul Kautzman, Kautzman Millwright and Jonathon Garaas to pay $1,000 as a sanction for their failure to comply with an earlier order compelling discovery?
4. Did the district court abuse its discretion by (a) holding Robert Kautzman, Paul Kautzman, Kautzman Millwright and Jonathon Garaas in contempt of court for their failure to pay the $1,000 sanction (b) ordering that judgment be entered against them for this amount; and (c) ordering that they pay an additional $250?
4. Should Robert Kautzman, Paul Kautzman, Kautzman Millwright and Jonathon Garaas be required to pay Rachel Dietz's legal fees and expenses incurred in this appeal.
Add Docket 20030362 RSS