Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hart v. Wolff

Supreme Court of Alaska · 1971 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryRule 34Rule 37Attorney's FeesCivil Rule 34Civil Rule 37Civil Rule 82

Facts

Hart sued Wolff for defamation based on statements accusing Hart of misappropriating funds in connection with Arctic Bowl, Inc. Wolff sought inspection of Arctic Bowl's corporate records under Civil Rule 34, asserting they would help prove the truth of the alleged defamatory statements. Although Hart was no longer an officer, the record showed he managed the bowling alley for Arctic Bowl and also handled Metropolitan Mortgage's business affairs in Fairbanks; Metropolitan was Arctic Bowl's controlling shareholder. After the superior court ordered Hart to produce the records within thirty days unless good cause was shown, Hart testified he made no efforts during that period to obtain or produce them, and the court dismissed his complaint without prejudice.

Issue

Whether the superior court properly ordered Hart to produce Arctic Bowl's records under Civil Rule 34 on the ground that he had sufficient control over them, and whether dismissal under Rule 37 for noncompliance was a proper sanction. A further issue was whether Wolff was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees, and whether the $500 award was an abuse of discretion.

Rule

Under Civil Rule 34, an order to produce documents may be directed only to a party with possession, custody, or control, but only a prima facie showing of control is required to justify the order. Control is not to be given a hypertechnical construction that undermines liberal discovery; the circumstances may permit an inference that a party has sufficient ability or influence to obtain the documents. Rule 37 sanctions for failure to obey a discovery order are proper only upon a willful refusal, and the choice of sanction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. A defendant may be a prevailing party for attorney's fees purposes even when the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Serrano sues Leo March in Anchorage for business defamation. Leo moves under a rule identical to Rule 34 for production of records belonging to Boreal Event Center, a nonparty corporation; Nina is not an officer, but she runs the center’s daily operations and separately works for North Sound Holdings, the corporation’s controlling shareholder, handling its Alaska transactions.

If Leo shows those relationships and seeks an order requiring Nina to produce the records, how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that only a prima facie showing of control is needed for a Rule 34 production order, and control should not be construed hypertechnically. A party’s position of authority with the corporation and simultaneous employment by its controlling shareholder can support an inference of sufficient ability or influence to obtain the records, even without personal possession or formal officer status. (Derived from Hart v. Wolff (n.d.).)