Colo. R. Civ. P. 37
In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order, or the attorney advising the party, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
The failure to act described in this subsection may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has previously filed a motion for a protective order as provided by C.R.C.P. 26(c).
C.R.C.P. 37
Comments
1990
[1] Subsection (b)(1) was modified to reflect that orders to deponents under subsection (a)(1), when the depositions are taking place within this state, are sought in and issued by the court where the action is pending or from which the subpoena is issued pursuant to Section 13-90-111 , C.R.S., and it is that court which will enforce its orders. Deponents appearing outside the state are beyond the jurisdictional limits of the Colorado courts. For out-of-state depositions, any problems should be addressed by the court of the jurisdiction where the deponent has appeared for the deposition under the laws of that jurisdiction.
1995
[2] Revised C.R.C.P. 37 is patterned substantially after Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 as amended in 1993 and has the same numbering. There are slight differences: (1) C.R.C.P. 37(4)(a) and (b) make sanctioning discretionary rather than mandatory; and (2) there is no State Rule 37(e) pertaining to sanctions for failure to participate in framing of a discovery plan . As with the other disclosure/discovery rules, revised C.R.C.P. 37 forms a part of a comprehensive case management system. See Committee Comments to C.R.C.P. 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 36.
2015
[3] The threat and, when required, application, of sanctions is necessary to convince litigants of the importance of full disclosure. Because the 2015 amendments also require more complete disclosures, Rule 37(a)(4) now authorizes, for motions to compel disclosures or discovery, imposition of sanctions against the losing party unless its actions "were substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses manifestly unjust." This change is intended to make it easier for judges to impose sanctions.
[4] On the other hand, consistent with recent supreme court cases such as Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 211 P.3d 698 (Colo. 2009), Rule 37(c) is amended to reduce the likelihood of preclusion of previously undisclosed evidence "unless such failure has not caused or will not cause significant harm, or such preclusion is disproportionate to that harm." When preclusion applied "unless the failure is harmless," it has been too easy for the objecting party to show some "harm," and thereby cause preclusion of otherwise important evidence, which, in some circumstances, conflicts with the court's decisions.
Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article, "Depositions and Discovery, Rules 26 to 37 ", see 28 Dicta 375 (1951). For article, "Depositions and Discovery: Rules 26-37 ", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 562 (1951). For article, "Plaintiff's Advantageous Use of Discovery, Pre-Trial and Summary Judgment", see 40 Den. L. Ctr. J. 192 (1963). For article, "A Deposition Primer, Part I: Setting Up the Deposition", see 11 Colo. Law. 938 (1982). For article, "Securing the Attendance of a Witness at a Deposition", see 15 Colo. Law. 2000 (1986). For article, "Rule 37: Discovery Sanctions Put "Teeth in the Tiger"", see 16 Colo. Law. 1998 (1987). For article, "Recovery of Attorney Fees and Costs in Colorado", see 23 Colo. Law. 2041 (1994). Reasonable discretion must be exercised in applying this rule. Weissman v. District Court, 189 Colo. 497, 543 P.2d 519 (1975). A party should not be denied a day in court because of an inflexible application of a procedural rule. Todd v. Bear Valley Vill. Apts., 980 P.2d 973 (Colo. 1999); Camp Bird Colo., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Ouray, 215 P.3d 1277 (Colo. App. 2009). Trial court should impose the least severe sanction, commensurate with the extent of the violation, contemplated in this section. Pinkstaff v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 211 P.3d 698 (Colo. 2009). "Opportunity to be heard", as used in section (a)(4)(A), does not mandate that a separate hearing be held before sanctions may be imposed. People ex rel. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Entrup, 143 P.3d 1120 (Colo. App. 2006). C.R.C.P. 26 to 36 and this rule must be construed together along with the requirement that plaintiff establish a prima facie case for punitive damages, as a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right to discovery of defendant's financial information. Leidholt v. District Court, 619 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1980). Civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. Based on §§ 16-8-115 to 16-8-117 and on the special nonadversary nature of a release inquiry, the participants in release proceedings do not have the broad right of discovery as provided in the rules of civil procedure. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Under C.R.C.P. 81(a), the procedure in release hearings under § 16-8-115 is so inconsistent and in conflict with the rules of civil procedure as to make civil discovery rules inapplicable to release hearings. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225, 557 P.2d 414 (1976). Tripartite balancing inquiry undertaken when right to confidentiality invoked. When the right to confidentiality is invoked to prevent disclosure of personal materials or information, a tripartite balancing inquiry must be undertaken by the court, as follows: (1) Does the party seeking to come within the protection of the right to confidentiality have a legitimate expectation that the materials or information will not be disclosed? (2) is disclosure nonetheless required to serve a compelling state interest? and (3) if so, will the necessary disclosure occur in that manner which is least intrusive with respect to the right to confidentiality? Martinelli v. District Court, 199 Colo. 163, 612 P.2d 1083 (1980). Court may order sanction if order sufficient. Where order required defendant to produce "requested" documents, plaintiff's motion to compel such production clearly listed the types of documents defendant was to produce, and evidence established that the requested documents were either in the defendant's custody or control, the court could properly order a sanction pursuant to section (b)(2)(A). N.S. by L.C.-K. v. S.S., 709 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1985). A court is not required to, sua sponte, convert a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute into a motion for sanctions under this rule. Cornelius v. River Ridge Ranch Landowners Ass'n, 202 P.3d 564 (Colo. 2009). Sanctions for destruction of evidence may not be awarded under this rule absent an order compelling production. However, under a court's inherent powers, sanctions for the destruction of evidence may be awarded. Lauren Corp. v. Century Geophysical Corp., 953 P.2d 200 (Colo. App. 1998). Plaintiff's motion for sanctions for destruction of evidence denied because defendant was not provided with clear, prompt notice that a complaint would be filed and evidence was preserved for a year and a half after incident. Defendant's conduct in discarding evidence was not in bad faith. Castillo v. Chief Alternative, LLC, 140 P.3d 234 (Colo. App. 2006). The appellate standard of review governing sanctions under this rule is whether the tribunal that imposed the sanction abused its discretion. When three separate hearings on the merits were vacated, and proceedings deadlocked for 18 months by claimant's refusal to sign an unconditional release, the sanction of dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. Sheid v. Hewlett Packard, 826 P.2d 396 (Colo. App. 1991). Trial court may not impose sanctions under C.R.C.P. 37(b)(2) where no violation of a court order has occurred. O'Reilly v. Physicians Mut. Ins. Co., 992 P.2d 644 (Colo. App. 1999). Rule as basis for jurisdiction. See Beebe v. Pierce, 185 Colo. 34, 521 P.2d 1263 (1974). Applied in City & County of Denver v. District Court, 199 Colo. 223, 607 P.2d 984 (1980); Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981); Wilson v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 633 P.2d 493 (Colo. App. 1981); Cross v. District Court, 643 P.2d 39 (Colo. 1982); Caldwell v. District Court, 644 P.2d 26 (Colo. 1982); Biella v. State Dept. of Hwys., 652 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1982); Black ex rel. Bayless v. Cullar, 665 P.2d 1029 (Colo. App. 1983); Asamera Oil (U.S.) Inc. v. KMOCO Oil Co., 759 P.2d 808 (Colo. App. 1988); Colo. State Bd. of Nursing v. Lang, 842 P.2d 1383 (Colo. App. 1992). II. Motion for Order. A. In General. Motion to compel discovery is committed to discretion of trial court and will be upheld on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Gagnon v. District Court, 632 P.2d 567 (Colo. 1981). Order reviewable in certain circumstances. Orders pertaining to pretrial discovery are interlocutory in nature and are not ordinarily reviewable in an original proceeding. Because, however, the exercise of original jurisdiction is discretionary and governed by the particular circumstances of the case, there are exceptions to this general rule when, for example, a pretrial discovery order significantly departs from the controlling standards of discovery, or when a pretrial discovery order will cause a party unwarranted damage that cannot be cured on appeal, such as where treatment records are protected from disclosure by statutory privileges. Clark v. District Court, 668 P.2d 3 (Colo. 1983). When supreme court will review denial of motion to compel. While orders pertaining to pretrial discovery are interlocutory in nature and generally not reviewable, the supreme court will exercise original jurisdiction where the trial courts denial of a petitioner's motion to compel discovery will preclude the petitioner from obtaining information vital to his claims for relief. Hawkins v. District Court, 638 P.2d 1372 (Colo. 1982). Trial court properly declined to award attorney's fees to nonparty deponent who moved the court not for a protective order but for an order striking defense counsel's endorsement of nonparty as an expert witness without any request for attorney's fees. Roberts-Henry v. Richter, 802 P.2d 1159 (Colo. App. 1990). Trial court finding that discovery motion was "not without justification" is insufficient to support denial of award of attorney's fees to person opposing motion which was denied. A remand is necessary because trial court must find that denied motion was "substantially justified" to deny award of attorney's fees to opponent of motion. Roberts-Henry v. Richter, 802 P.2d 1159 (Colo. App. 1990). B. Failure to Answer. Sections (a)(1) and (d) are independent. The wording of the two sections (a)(1) and (d) of this rule establishes that these sections are independent significance and operation. Petrini v. Sidwell, 38 Colo. App. 454, 558 P.2d 447 (1976). The requirement of a motion and order under subsection (a)(1) should not be read into the provisions of section (d) as a condition precedent to entry of default judgment. Petrini v. Sidwell, 38 Colo. App. 454, 558 P.2d 447 (1976). When answers to interrogatories are not made, or are defective in some particular, the remedy is to compel proper answers, and one may not expect an answer on file to be disregarded by the court on the basis of technical defects unless he has properly raised the defects for consideration by the court. Moses v. Moses, 180 Colo. 398, 505 P.2d 1302 (1973). But employees, particularly nonresidents, of corporation cannot be compelled to answer or produce private records. Corporations are "sui generis", and a suit against a principal is not a suit against its agents or employees. So the fact that defendants are sued by a foreign corporation in Colorado does not mean that all of the plaintiff-corporation's officers and employees located and domiciled outside Colorado are subject to the jurisdiction of Colorado courts. Moreover, no employer, corporate or otherwise, can compel its personnel to travel to a foreign state or furnish their private records for the use of its opponents. Solliday v. District Court, 135 Colo. 489, 313 P.2d 1000 (1957). C. Award of Expenses of Motion. Entry of an award is mandatory under subsection (a)(3). Graefe & Graefe v. Beaver Mesa Exploration, 695 P.2d 767 (Colo. App. 1984). Although wife's motion in dissolution of marriage action included language used in C.R.C.P. 26(c), neither the motion nor the argument made at the hearing indicated that she was requesting discovery and the trial court had no authority to assess attorney fees pursuant to this rule. In re Smith, 757 P.2d 1159 (Colo. App. 1988). III. Failure to Comply. A. Sanctions by Court in District. Strict compliance with contempt procedures must be followed before jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt and punishment therefor attaches. Metcalf v. Roberts, 158 Colo. 255, 406 P.2d 103 (1965). Where the order of the court is one requiring a party to answer "any questions desired to be asked by counsel", violation of such a broad order cannot be adjudicated a contempt under this rule. Metcalf v. Roberts, 158 Colo. 255, 406 P.2d 103 (1965). Sections (a) and (b)(1) of this rule must be read together and contemplate a specific order to answer specific questions, followed by an opportunity to resume the taking of the deposition, and, if there then occurs a refusal by the deponent to answer the specific questions as ordered, citation for contempt may issue. Metcalf v. Roberts, 158 Colo. 255, 406 P.2d 103 (1965). Party must refuse to be sworn or answer to be in contempt. Where there is no contention that a party refused to be sworn or that he refused to answer any question after being directed to do so by the court, which are the only circumstances from which contempt of court will lie under section (b)(1) of this rule, then it is error for a court to find a party in contempt. Salter v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 126 Colo. 39, 246 P.2d 890 (1952), aff'd, 130 Colo. 504, 277 P.2d 232 (1954). A party who fails to attend the taking of a deposition cannot be adjudged in contempt under section (b)(1) of this rule. Salter v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 126 Colo. 39, 246 P.2d 890 (1952), aff'd, 130 Colo. 504, 277 P.2d 232 (1954). B. Sanctions by Court in Which Action is Pending. This rule provides that under limited circumstances if corporate officials fail to testify in a suit concerning the corporation, as may be required by the court, then certain pleading penalties may be invoked against the corporation, but not the corporation's agents or employees, and particularly those residing in another state. Solliday v. District Court, 135 Colo. 489, 313 P.2d 1000 (1957). Pleading penalties may be invoked. If corporate officials fail to testify in a suit concerning the corporation, as may be required by our courts, then certain pleading penalties may be invoked against the corporation. Weissman v. District Court, 189 Colo. 497, 543 P.2d 519 (1975). Default judgment should be set aside where trial court enters the default in the absence of any showing that the party against whom the default is entered had personal knowledge of the duties imposed upon him by a pretrial order and without a showing that the three-day notice of application for default requirement of C.R.C.P. 55(b)(2), has been observed. Colo. Ranch Estates, Inc. v. Halvorson, 163 Colo. 146, 428 P.2d 917 (1967). Gross negligence on the part of counsel resulting in a default judgment being entered pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(C) of this rule is considered excusable neglect on the part of the client entitling him to have the judgment set aside under C.R.C.P. 60(b), for to hold otherwise, would be to punish the innocent client for the gross negligence of his attorney. Temple v. Miller, 30 Colo. App. 49, 488 P.2d 252 (1971). Finding of willfulness or bad faith not required. Entry of a default judgment under subsection (b)(2) does not require a finding of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the disobedient party. Callahan v. Wadsworth Ltd., 669 P.2d 141 (Colo. App. 1983). Judgment dismissing complaint under subsection (b)(2) does not require a finding of willfulness or bad faith by disobedient party. McRill v. Guar. Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n, 682 P.2d 498 (Colo. App. 1984). Notice requirement of C.R.C.P. 55(b)(2) must be scrupulously adhered to; however, default judgment is permissible even though proper time between service and entry of judgment was not met where the trial court's order was sufficiently clear to provide requisite notice to defendant that failure to provide discovery could result in entry of a default judgment. Muck v. Stubblefield, 682 P.2d 1237 (Colo. App. 1984); Audio-Visual Sys., Inc. v. Hopper, 762 P.2d 696 (Colo. App. 1988). Appropriateness of sanction not held error. Although sanction establishing personal jurisdiction over defendant was overbroad and improper in relation to the motion on which it was based, it did not constitute reversible error because evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. N.S. by L.C.-K. v. S.S., 709 P.2d 6 (Colo. App. 1985). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting plaintiffs' interpretation of contract as sanction for defendants' unexcused failure to appear for scheduled depositions. Scrima v. Goodley, 731 P.2d 766 (Colo. App. 1986). Dismissal is not required where corporation's C.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) deponent failed to have personal knowledge regarding the question specified in the deposition subpoena, despite the fact that the district court's sanction of an award of costs did not cure the prejudice to the party noticing the deposition. Mun. Subdist., Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. OXY USA, Inc., 990 P.2d 701 (Colo. 1999). Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose attorney fees as sanction for failure to respond to discovery requests in post-dissolution of marriage modification of child support case. In re Emerson, 77 P.3d 923 (Colo. App. 2003). IV. Expenses on Failure to Admit. Law reviews. For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals", see 39 Dicta 133 (1962). The awarding of costs is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Superior Distrib. Corp. v. White, 146 Colo. 595, 362 P.2d 196 (1961); Lamont v. Riverside Irrigation Dist., 179 Colo. 134, 498 P.2d 1150 (1972). The awarding of costs is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be interfered with on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Prof'l Rodeo Cowboys Ass'n v. Wilch, Smith & Brock, 42 Colo. App. 30, 589 P.2d 510 (1978). Trial court erred in not awarding reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the defendant in disproving plaintiff's denial of fact which was material in proving truth of statement charged as defamatory in libel action. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). Under section (c) of this rule, there must be something more than simply a refused admission and its subsequent proof. Lamont v. Riverside Irrigation Dist., 179 Colo. 134, 498 P.2d 1150 (1972). Under this rule, such costs are awarded only upon proper finding of the requirements by the trial court. Superior Distrib. Corp. v. White, 146 Colo. 595, 362 P.2d 196 (1961). The absence of an express finding of good faith on the part of one party does not entitle the other party to recover. Lamont v. Riverside Irrigation Dist., 179 Colo. 134, 498 P.2d 1150 (1972). V. Failure to Disclose. Section (c) provides for the exclusion of non-disclosed evidence unless the failure to disclose is either substantially justified or harmless to the opposing party. Todd v. Bear Valley Vill. Apts., 980 P.2d 973 (Colo. 1999); Cook v. Fernandez-Rocha, 168 P.3d 505 (Colo. 2007); Trattler v. Citron, 182 P.3d 674 (Colo. 2008); Warden v. Exempla, Inc., 2012 CO 74, 291 P.3d 30. For a non-exhaustive list of factors identified by federal courts that may be used to guide a trial court in evaluating whether a failure to disclose is either substantially justified or harmless, see Todd v. Bear Valley Vill. Apts., 980 P.2d 973 (Colo. 1999). Failure to disclose was harmless under the facts of this case. Todd v. Bear Valley Vill. Apts., 980 P.2d 973 (Colo. 1999). Reading section (c) of this rule together with C.R.C.P. 26(a) and 26(c), a party may request sanctions based on the opposing party's providing, without substantial justification, misleading disclosures or its failure, without substantial justification, seasonably to correct misleading disclosures. In legal malpractice case, because the trial court did not consider the defendant's claim that attorneys representing plaintiff provided misleading disclosures or failed seasonably to correct such disclosures, it incorrectly denied the motion under section (c) of this rule. Brown v. Silvern, 141 P.3d 871 (Colo. App. 2005). Because section (c) expressly requires the court to afford an opportunity to be heard, on remand, trial court must hold a hearing on defendant's motion seeking sanctions and attorney fees from plaintiff's attorneys. In doing so, the court must determine whether the disclosures were misleading or there was a failure seasonably to supplement misleading disclosures and, if so, whether the failure was, 980 P.2d 973 (Colo 1999); Brown v. Silvern, 141 P.3d 871 (Colo. App. 2005). Trial court abused its discretion in precluding expert witness testimony. Where plaintiff failed to fully disclose the testimonial history of expert witnesses as required by C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I) but otherwise provided all required disclosures, the entire proposed testimony of the expert witnesses could not be considered undisclosed evidence and witness preclusion was a disproportionately harsh sanction. Because sanctions should be directly commensurate with the prejudice caused to the opposing party, in lieu of witness preclusion, the trial court should have considered use of the alternative sanctions referenced in section (c). Trattler v. Citron, 182 P.3d 674 (Colo. 2008); Erskine v. Beim, 197 P.3d 225 (Colo. App. 2008). Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for extension of time for C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) expert witness without conducting an inquiry into the harmlessness of party's non-compliance with C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2). Cook v. Fernandez-Rocha, 168 P.3d 505 (Colo. 2007). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking affirmative defenses where defendant failed to respond to motion for limited sanctions and thereby failed to show that its failure to make initial disclosure was harmless. Furthermore, in striking the affirmative defenses the court did not deny defendants the opportunity to be heard because there were still issues of fact that could be challenged. Weize Co., LLC v. Colo. Reg'l Constr., 251 P.3d 489 (Colo. App. 2010). Trial court abused its discretion in barring an expert medical witness where the facts of the case showed that plaintiff's untimely disclosure of the expert witness was substantially justified because it resulted from the progressive nature of the plaintiff's alleged injuries, the expert's testimony was potentially central to the plaintiff's case, and the delayed disclosure was harmless to the defendant because the trial date had not yet been set. Berry v. Keltner, 208 P.3d 247 (Colo. 2009). Late disclosure did not cause prejudice. County's untimely disclosure of witnesses and exhibits required under C.R.C.P. 26(a) did not constitute serious misconduct that denied defendant an adequate opportunity to defend against the witnesses and exhibits. Camp Bird Colo., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Ouray, 215 P.3d 1277 (Colo. App. 2009). Trial court was not required to preclude expert witness's entire testimony. Where expert's report was submitted 11 days before trial and defendant knew the substance of the expert's testimony, had received all other disclosures required by C.R.C.P. 26, and deposed the expert before trial, trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert to testify after redacting portions of the report that previously had not been made known to the defendant. Camp Bird Colo., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Ouray, 215 P.3d 1277 (Colo. App. 2009). Trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding expert witness's testimony. The sanction of preclusion of expert medical witness was not disproportionate because it was based not only on witness's failure to fully disclose testimonial history, but also on witness's failure to produce materials used to formulate opinions pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(B)(I). Clements v. Davies, 217 P.3d 912 (Colo. App. 2009). No abuse of discretion by trial court in excluding evidence of settlement between general contractor and homeowners. Trial court struck information contained in new disclosures because it was untimely. It apparently accepted subcontractors' argument that allowing information about newly disclosed settlement would be unfairly prejudicial to them and that the settlement was not binding on them. Trial court acknowledged public policy encouraging settlements but noted that indemnification claim was present from the beginning of litigation and all parties had time to prepare for it. D.R. Horton, Inc.-Denver v. Bischoff & Coffman Constr., LLC, 217 P.3d 1262 (Colo. App. 2009). VI. Failure of Party to Attend Deposition. Sections (a)(1) and (d) are independent. The wording of the two sections (a)(1) and (d) of this rule establishes that these sections are of independent significance and operation. Petrini v. Sidwell, 38 Colo. App. 454, 558 P.2d 447 (1976). The requirement of a motion and order under section (a)(1) should not be read into the provisions of section (d) as a condition precedent to entry of default judgment. Petrini v. Sidwell, 38 Colo. App. 454, 558 P.2d 447 (1976). For intent of 1970 amendment, see Petrini v. Sidwell, 38 Colo. App. 454, 558 P.2d 447 (1976). Under this rule if the failure to appear before the officer who is to take the deposition is willful, the court, on notice and motion, may strike out all or any part of the pleadings, dismiss the action or proceeding, or enter judgment by default against the party so failing. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. District Court, 126 Colo. 217, 247 P.2d 903 (1952). There must be a clear showing of "willful failure". The court should not resort to the drastic action of dismissing a complaint for failure to appear for a deposition in the absence of a clear showing that the party "willfully fails" to respond. Manning v. Manning, 136 Colo. 380, 317 P.2d 329 (1957). A trial court may rule confidential information admissible as a discovery sanction when the violating party fails to object timely to the discovery requests which originally sought confidential information. Scott v. Matlack, Inc., 39 P.3d 1160 (Colo. 2002). Default judgment proper where party fails to appear for deposition. Judgment by default may be entered against a party who willfully fails to appear in response to a proper notice to have his deposition taken under this rule. Salter v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 126 Colo. 39, 246 P.2d 890 (1952), aff'd, 130 Colo. 504, 277 P.2d 232 (1954). Default and judgment properly taken against party where he refuses to answer interrogatories or produce documents. Where interrogatories are properly served on a party and he is also duly served with an order for production of documents pertinent to the issues involved in the cause, and the party fails and refuses either to answer the interrogatories or produce the documents ordered by the court, then a default and judgment is properly taken against that party for such refusal. Johnson v. George, 119 Colo. 594, 206 P.2d 345 (1949). Before the penalty of default is imposed, there must be given an opportunity to show cause for nonappearance. Salter v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 126 Colo. 39, 246 P.2d 890 (1952), aff'd, 130 Colo. 504, 277 P.2d 232 (1954). This rule requires that, before a default can be entered, it must be on "motion and notice", including the three-day notice requirement of C.R.C.P. 55(b)(2), where the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action. Salter v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 126 Colo. 39, 246 P.2d 890 (1952), aff'd, 130 Colo. 504, 277 P.2d 232 (1954). Contempt is not a penalty that goes along with a default judgment under this rule. Salter v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 126 Colo. 39, 246 P.2d 890 (1952), aff'd, 130 Colo. 504, 277 P.2d 232 (1954). Entering a default judgment is discretionary under this rule. This rule provides that where a party fails to appear for his deposition the court "may" enter a default judgment. Freeland v. Fife, 151 Colo. 339, 377 P.2d 942 (1963). There is an abuse of discretion to enter default where party was financially unable to appear and offered to give deposition prior to trial. There was no willful failure of a nonresident party to appear for the taking of a deposition as would justify the trial court in dismissing that party's action where she was financially unable to pay her expenses to the place where the deposition was to be taken; since there are other procedures available to the opposing party by way of interrogatories and requests for admissions which afford protection against surprise, and counsel for the nonappearing party offered to have the party appear a few days prior to the date of trial, thereby involving the expenditure of but one trip and not denying the opposing party his right to a deposition. Manning v. Manning, 136 Colo. 380, 317 P.2d 329 (1957). There is no abuse of discretion in not entering default where party offered to appear in another place. Where a party, a resident of another state, notified counsel for the other party that she either could not or would not appear at the place in Colorado indicated in the notice to take her deposition, but would be available at another place in Colorado for such purpose, and did not appear at the place indicated, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike the nonappearing party's answer and enter a default judgment under section (d) of this rule. Freeland v. Fife, 151 Colo. 339, 377 P.2d 942 (1963). The trial court must consider whether a party's failure to comply with discovery was willful or in bad faith in determining which sanctions should be applied under section (d). Petrini v. Sidwell, 38 Colo. App. 454, 558 P.2d 447 (1976). Imposition of default judgment is a drastic sanction requiring specific finding of willfulness, bad faith, or culpable fault consisting of at least gross negligence in failing to comply with discovery obligations. Kwik Way Stores, Inc., v. Caldwell, 745 P.2d 672 (Colo. 1987). Finding of willful disobedience justifies imposition of default. Audio-Visual Sys., Inc. v. Hopper, 762 P.2d 696 (Colo. App. 1988); Kennedy by and through Kennedy v. Pelster, 813 P.2d 845 (Colo. App. 1991). Before entering order of dismissal, court is required to consider and to determine whether plaintiffs had the practical ability to pay the attorney fees awarded. Lewis v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 841 P.2d 385 (Colo. App. 1992). Sanction of dismissal should be imposed only if the sanctioned party has engaged in culpable conduct consisting of willful disobedience, a flagrant disregard of that party's discovery obligations, or a substantial deviation from reasonable care in complying with those obligations. Lewis v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 841 P.2d 385 (Colo. App. 1992). Party's pattern of noncompliance and sabotage in connection with court-ordered psychiatric examination warranted dismissal under subsection (b)(2). Newell v. Engel, 899 P.2d 273 (Colo. App. 1994). Failure to pay attorneys fees and costs can result in dismissal only if it is established that such failure was willful or in bad faith, and not because of an inability to pay. Lewis v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 841 P.2d 385 (Colo. App. 1992). If there is a genuine factual issue as to the party's ability to pay, the trial court must undertake to resolve that issue and to adopt sufficient findings and conclusions to disclose the basis for its decision. Lewis v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 841 P.2d 385 (Colo. App. 1992). The actions of a party acting as "next friend" for a minor plaintiff cannot be the basis for punitive sanctions against the minor where there is no evidence the minor refused to cooperate in discovery and there are lesser sanctions to compel discovery which would not result in dismissal of the minor's claim for events beyond his control. Kennedy by and through Kennedy v. Pelster, 813 P.2d 845 (Colo. App. 1991).
For general provisions governing discovery, see C.R.C.P. 26; for protective orders, see C.R.C.P. 26(c); for depositions upon oral examination, see C.R.C.P. 30; for depositions upon written questions, see C.R.C.P. 31; for depositions of public or private corporations, partnerships or associations, or governmental agencies, see C.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) and 31(a); for interrogatories to parties, see C.R.C.P. 33; for production of documents and things and entry upon land for inspection and other purposes, see C.R.C.P. 34; for scope of discovery, see C.R.C.P. 26(b); for stipulations regarding discovery procedure, see C.R.C.P. 29; for civil contempt, see C.R.C.P. 107; for vacating a default judgment, see C.R.C.P. 60(b); for requests for admission, see C.R.C.P. 36.