Rule 37.Failure to Make Disclosures or To Cooperate in Discovery: Sanctions
Last amended July 1, 2018 · Last verified July 1, 2026
Full Text of Rule 37
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comment—2018 Amendments
Rule 37 is amended to adopt changes made to Federal Rule 37 in 2015. Rule 37.01(b)(2)(D) is amended to provide express authority for a motion for an order compelling discovery when a party fails to respond to a request either by the production of requested information or by the agreement to permit inspection. This amendment provides the means for enforcing the obligations under amended Rule 34.02.
Advisory Committee Comment—2007 Amendment
Rule 37.05 is a new rule; it is identical to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f), adopted in 2006. It provides some protection against the automatic imposition of sanctions that might otherwise be required under the rules. This rule applies only to discovery of electronically stored information, and prevents the imposition of sanctions for spoliation of evidence where the loss of information arises from the routine operation of a computer system. The good-faith part of this test is important and is not met if a party fails to take appropriate steps to preserve data once a duty to preserve arises.
Advisory Committee Comment—2018 Amendments
Rule 37.05 is amended to redefine the sanctions available for the failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”). The amendment follows closely the amendment made to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) in 2015 and is intended to create a clearer standard for imposition of sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information. First, the rule looks to ameliorating any prejudice by allowing discovery to restore or replace the missing information. This might be accomplished by locating alternate copies of the information, or reconstructing backed up copies. In the absence of prejudice, the rule does not authorize the imposition of sanctions for loss of information. The rule does not limit other sanctions based on conduct other than failure to preserve ESI. If prejudice does occur, the amended rule requires that a remedial sanction be implemented—one that is designed and limited to curing the prejudice. Most often, this would be an order precluding evidence or limiting claims or defenses affected by the missing ESI. If the missing ESI was intentionally destroyed or otherwise made unavailable, the rule allows the more drastic sanctions of imposition of a presumption or either allowing or requiring a jury either to draw an adverse inference that the information was unfavorable to the party or, in egregious situations, dismiss the action or grant a default judgment. By its terms, this rule applies only to failure to produce ESI where there is a duty to preserve it. There is no reason, however, that the courts should not, in the exercise of their discretion, follow this rule where there is the failure to preserve other evidence, such as physical evidence or documents in non-electronic form.
Amendment History
- (Amended effective July 1, 2018.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2013.)
- (Adopted effective July 1, 2018.)
- (Adopted effective July 1, 2013.)
Plain-English Summary
Discovery only works if both sides play along. Rule 37 is the enforcement mechanism for when one side does not: it will not answer interrogatories, will not produce documents, will not sit for a deposition, or gives answers so vague or incomplete that they amount to no answer at all. Before running to court, though, the party who wants the missing information has to first try to work it out directly. A motion to compel discovery must include a certification that the requesting party made a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute without involving the judge.
If the motion succeeds, the default outcome is that the losing side pays the winning side’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, for having to bring the motion. That is not automatic punishment; a court will skip the fee award if the party who lost had a substantially justified position, if the winning side never tried to resolve things informally first, or if an award would be unjust under the circumstances. The same fee-shifting logic runs in reverse: if a motion to compel is denied, the person who brought it may have to cover the other side’s expenses instead, unless their position was substantially justified.
When a party ignores a court order to provide discovery, the consequences escalate well beyond paying fees. A judge can treat disputed facts as established in the other side’s favor, block the disobedient party from raising or defending certain claims, strike pleadings, dismiss the case, or enter default judgment. Failing to show up for your own deposition, or ignoring interrogatories and document requests entirely, can trigger these same escalated sanctions even without a prior court order, because the rule treats those as basic obligations that do not need a judge’s reminder.
Two more situations get their own rules. If someone loses electronically stored information because they failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it once litigation was reasonably expected, a court can order fixes to cure any resulting unfairness, and if the loss was intentional, can go as far as presuming the lost material was damaging or entering default judgment. And if a party will not participate in good faith when the parties are supposed to work out a discovery plan together, the court can make them pay the other side’s expenses caused by that refusal.
Frequently Asked Questions
The other side has not answered my interrogatories. Can I go straight to the judge?
Not immediately. Before filing a motion to compel, you need to have conferred, or made a good-faith attempt to confer, with the other side to try to resolve the problem without court involvement. Your motion has to certify that you did this.
If I win my motion to compel, do I automatically get my attorney fees paid?
In most cases, yes. When a motion to compel is granted, or when the missing discovery shows up only after you filed the motion, the court must generally order the non-cooperating party or their attorney to pay your reasonable expenses, including attorney fees. Exceptions exist: no award if you skipped the good-faith effort to resolve things first, if the other side’s position was substantially justified, or if an award would otherwise be unjust.
What if I file a motion to compel and lose?
You may end up paying the other side’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, for having to respond to your motion, unless your position was substantially justified or other circumstances make that unfair.
What can happen if someone ignores a court order to produce documents?
The consequences can be serious. The court can order that certain facts be treated as established, prevent the disobedient party from supporting or opposing specific claims or defenses, strike their pleadings, stay the case, dismiss it, or enter default judgment against them. The court can also treat the failure as contempt, and it must generally make the disobedient party pay the other side’s reasonable expenses caused by the failure.
We lost some text messages that should have been kept for the case. What happens now?
It depends on why the messages were lost and whether the other side was harmed. If a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve information it should have preserved once litigation was anticipated, and it cannot be recovered through other discovery, a court can order steps to fix any unfair harm. If the loss was intentional, meaning done to keep the other side from using the information, the court can go further: presuming the lost material was unfavorable, telling the jury it may or must assume that, or even dismissing the case or entering default judgment.
Advisory Committee Comments--1996 Amendments
This change conforms the rule to its federal counterpart, consistent with the ongoing differences between the two rules.