SCOVT reverses imposition of a monetary discovery sanction for lying and obstructing the discovery process where the sanctioned party was in compliance with order compelling discovery.

Sidmond C. Williams & Barbara B. Williams, Co-Trustees v. Town of North Hero, 2018 VT 114 [filed 10/19/2018]

EATON, J. The Town of North Hero appeals the Property Valuation and Review Division hearing officer’s decision to impose a $2000 discovery sanction against the Town in a property-tax-reappraisal appeal brought by the Williams Living Trust. The hearing officer imposed the sanction as a result of a claimed discovery violation by the Town concerning disclosure of an electronic Excel spreadsheet file requested by the Trust. We reverse

After repeatedly being told a file did not exist in the requested format, the Trust filed motion to compel and obtained an ordering requiring the Town to make one last effort to obtain a copy of the file in the requested format . In compliance with the hearing officer’s order, the produced a copy of the Excel spreadsheet file in the format requested to the Trust. The Trust filed a motion describing the Town’s conduct concerning the file request as “blatant misconduct during discovery” and seeking monetary sanctions for the Town’s failure to produce the file earlier.

The hearing officer imposed a monetary sanction against the Town of $2000 for false statements made by Town officials and the “expenses, effort, and time” the Trust spent as a result of the Town’s failure to produce the file until ordered to do so.

This is not a case where a party was in violation of a discovery order. If the hearing officer would lack authority to impose monetary sanctions under Rule 37 of the more formal discovery process of the civil rules, it cannot be said that the authority to do so here. The rule does not permit sanctions when a party has complied with an order compelling discovery. Where the Town had fully complied with the order compelling discovery, the imposition of a monetary sanction against the Town was an abuse of discretion.

Because of our disposition of this case, we need not consider the accuracy of the hearing officer’s findings characterizing the Town’s statements concerning the existence of the file as falsehoods.