Rule 37.Failure to Make or Cooperate in Discovery: Sanctions
Last amended July 1, 2009 · Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 37 lets a party move to compel discovery a deponent or opposing party has withheld, backed by presumptive fee-shifting against whichever side loses the motion, and escalates to sanctions — up to dismissal, default judgment, or contempt — for disobeying a discovery order, failing to supplement responses, wrongly denying a request for admission, or missing a deposition, interrogatory, or production deadline outright.
37.01Motion for Order Compelling Discovery. A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:
1APPROPRIATE COURT. An application for an order to a party or to a deponent who is not a party, may be made to the court in which the action is pending.
2MOTION. If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under Rule 30 or 31, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30.02 (6) or 31.01, or a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before applying for an order. If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion made pursuant to Rule 26.03.
3EVASIVE OR INCOMPLETE ANSWER. For purposes of this subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.
4AWARD OF EXPENSES OF MOTION. If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. If the motion is denied, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the moving party or the attorney advising the motion or both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.
37.02Failure to Comply with Order. If a deponent; a party; an officer, director, or managing agent of a party; or, a person designated under Rule 30.02(6) or 31.01 to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under Rule 37.01 or Rule 35, or if a party fails to obey an order entered under Rule 26.06, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:
AAn order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
BAn order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence;
CAn order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;
DIn lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination;
EWhere a party has failed to comply with an order under Rule 35.01 requiring the party to produce another for examination, such orders as are listed in paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this rule, unless the party failing to comply shows that he or she is unable to produce such person for examination. 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.
37.03Failure to Supplement or Amend Responses or Failure to Admit.
1A party who without substantial justification fails to supplement or amend responses to discovery requests as required by Rule 26.05 is not permitted, unless such failure is harmless, to use as evidence at trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed. In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court on motion may impose other appropriate sanctions. In addition to requiring payment of reasonable expenses (including attorney fees) caused by the failure, these sanctions may include any of the actions authorized under Rule 37.02(A), (B), and (C) and may include informing the jury of the failure to supplement or amend.
2If a party fails to admit the genuineness of any document or the truth of any matter as requested under Rule 36, and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of the document or the truth of the matter, the requesting party may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay the requesting party the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including reasonable attorney's fees. The court shall make the order unless it finds that (1) the request was held objectionable pursuant to Rule 36.01, or (2) the admission sought was of no substantial importance, or (3) the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to believe that he or she might prevail on the matter, or (4) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.
37.04Failure of Party to Attend at Own Deposition or Serve Answers to Interrogatories or Respond to Requests for Inspection. If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under Rule 30.02(6) or 31.01 to testify on behalf of a party fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take his or her deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or (2) to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, after proper service of the interrogatories, or (3) to serve a written response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service of the request, the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action authorized under paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of Rule 37.02. In lieu of any order or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to act or the attorney advising that 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 subdivision may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by Rule 26.03.
37.05Failure to Participate in the Framing of a Discovery Plan. If a party or the party's attorney fails to participate in good faith in the framing of a discovery plan by agreement as is required by Rule 26.06, the court may, after opportunity for hearing, require such party or the party's attorney to pay to any other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure.
1If a party fails to provide electronically stored information and a motion to compel discovery is filed, a judge should first determine whether the material sought is subject to production under the applicable standard of discovery. If the requested information is subject to production, a judge should then weigh the benefits to the requesting party against the burden and expense of the discovery for the responding party, considering such factors as: the ease of accessing the requested information; the total cost of production compared to the amount in controversy; the materiality of the information to the requesting party; the availability of the information from other sources; the complexity of the case and the importance of the issues addressed; the need to protect privilege, proprietary, or confidential information, including trade secrets; whether the information or software needed to access the requested information is proprietary or constitutes confidential business information; the breadth of the request, including whether a subset (e.g., by date, author, recipient, or through use of a key-term search or other selection criteria) or representative sample of the contested electronically stored information can be provided initially to determine whether production of additional such information is warranted; the relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so; the resources of each party compared to the total cost of production; whether the requesting party has offered to pay some or all of the costs of identifying, reviewing, and producing the information; whether the electronically stored information is stored in a way that makes it more costly or burdensome to access than is reasonably warranted by legitimate personal, business, or other non- litigation-related reasons; and whether the responding party has deleted, discarded or erased electronic information after litigation was commenced or after the responding party was aware that litigation was probable.
2Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith, operation of an electronic information system.
Advisory Commission Comments
Advisory Commission Comments.
This Rule prescribes penalties for violation of pretrial procedures contained in Rules 26 through 36. While the penalties provided for herein probably lie within the inherent power of a trial court, it was felt desirable to suggest guidelines for appropriate action under the various circumstances mentioned in the Rule.
37.02: Deponents are added to the list of persons who can be sanctioned. Presumably the usual sanction would be contempt under Rule 37.02(D). Compare F.R.C.P. 37 (b)(1). [1984.]
37.05: This amendment corresponds to new Rule 26.06. [1984.]
Advisory Commission Comments [2006].
Rule 37.03(1) expressly provides sanctions for failure to supplement or amend discovery responses. The usual sanction will be exclusion of evidence at trial. Courts already have this power under the common law. Lyle v. Exxon., 746 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. 1998), and Ammons v. Bonilla, 886 S.W.2d 239 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Advisory Commission Comments [2009].
Rule 37.06(1) is a new rule adopted from Guideline 5 ("The Scope of Electronic Discovery"), Guidelines for State Trial Courts Regarding Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information, Conference of Chief Justices (2006). It focuses on a distinctive feature of computer operations, the routine alteration and deletion of information that attends ordinary use. Many steps essential to computer operation may alter or destroy information, for reasons that have nothing to do with how that information might relate to litigation. As a result, the ordinary operation of computer systems creates a risk that a party may lose potentially discoverable information without culpable conduct on its part. Under Rule 37.01(2), absent exceptional circumstances, sanctions cannot be imposed for loss of electronically stored information resulting from the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system. Rule 37.06(2) applies only to information lost due to the "routine operation of an electronic information system" -- the ways in which such systems are generally designed, programmed, and implemented to meet the party's technical and business needs. The "routine operation" of computer systems includes the alteration and overwriting of information, often without the operator's specific direction or awareness, a feature with no direct counterpart in hard-copy documents. Such features are essential to the operation of electronic information systems. Rule 37.06(2) applies to information lost due to the routine operation of an information system only if the operation was in good faith. Good faith in the routine operation of an information system may involve a party's intervention to modify or suspend certain features of that routine operation to prevent the loss of information, if that information is subject to a preservation obligation. A preservation obligation may arise from many sources, including common law, statutes, regulations, or a court order in the case. The good faith requirement of Rule 37.06(2) means that a party is not permitted to exploit the routine operation of an information system to thwart discovery obligations by allowing that operation to continue in order to destroy specific stored information that it is required to preserve. When a party is under a duty to preserve information because of pending or reasonably anticipated litigation, intervention in the routine operation of an information system is one aspect of what is often called a "litigation hold." Among the factors that bear on a party's good faith in the routine operation of an information system are the steps the party took to comply with a court order in the case or party agreement requiring preservation of specific electronically stored information. The protection provided by Rule 37.06 applies only to sanctions "under these rules." It does not affect other sources of authority to impose sanctions or rules of professional responsibility.
This rule restricts the imposition of "sanctions." It does not prevent a court from making the kinds of adjustments frequently used in managing discovery if a party is unable to provide relevant responsive information. For example, a court could order the responding party to produce an additional witness for deposition, respond to additional interrogatories, or make similar attempts to provide substitutes or alternatives for some or all of the lost information.
Amendment History
Added by order filed January 8, 2009, effective July 1, 2009.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 37.01 lets a party move to compel discovery when a deponent will not answer a question, a party will not answer an interrogatory, or a party resists an inspection request. An evasive or incomplete answer counts as no answer at all. Whichever side loses the motion generally pays the other side’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless the losing position was substantially justified or an award would otherwise be unjust — a default meant to make fee-shifting the norm rather than a rare punishment, so that resisting a legitimate discovery request without good reason carries a real cost.
Rule 37.02 covers what happens once a party ignores an order compelling discovery: the court can deem disputed facts established against the disobedient party, bar it from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, strike pleadings, stay the case, dismiss it, enter a default judgment, or hold the disobedient party in contempt — every remedy except contempt is also available when a party fails to produce someone for a Rule 35 examination as ordered. Courts treat dismissal and default as measures of last resort, reserved for real willfulness, bad faith, or a pattern of stonewalling rather than an isolated misstep, especially when the failure traces back to counsel rather than the client.
Rule 37.03 adds two more triggers: a party that fails, without substantial justification, to supplement or correct its discovery responses can be barred from using the undisclosed witness or information at trial, unless the failure turns out to be harmless; and a party that denies a request for admission the requesting party later proves true can be ordered to pay the cost of that proof, unless the denial was justified — because the request was objectionable, unimportant, or the denying party had a reasonable basis to think it might prevail on the point.
Rule 37.04 addresses a party who does not show up at all: missing a properly noticed deposition, never answering interrogatories, or never responding to a production request. None of those failures can be excused on the ground that the discovery itself was objectionable unless the non-responding party sought a protective order first. Rule 37.05, rarely invoked, lets a court sanction a party who will not participate in good faith in framing a discovery plan. Rule 37.06 gives some protection against sanctions for electronically stored information lost through the routine, good-faith operation of an information system — a safe harbor that does not apply once a party is on notice that it needs to preserve that information and lets the system erase it anyway.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who pays the costs of a motion to compel discovery?
Generally the losing side. Rule 37.01 makes fee-shifting the default outcome — the party who loses the motion pays the other side’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless its position was substantially justified or an award would be unjust.
Can a case be dismissed for ignoring a discovery order?
Yes, under Rule 37.02, but courts treat dismissal and default judgment as last-resort sanctions reserved for real willfulness or bad faith, not for an isolated mistake, particularly when the fault lies with counsel rather than the client.
Am I protected from sanctions if my computer system automatically deletes old files?
Only within limits. Rule 37.06 shields a party from sanctions for information lost through the routine, good-faith operation of an information system, but that protection ends once the party is on notice it needs to preserve the information and lets the routine deletion continue anyway.
What if I never respond to interrogatories at all?
Rule 37.04 lets the court impose the same sanctions available under Rule 37.02 — including striking pleadings or entering a default judgment — for a party who fails outright to answer interrogatories, appear for a deposition, or respond to a production request, and that failure cannot be excused just because the discovery was objectionable unless a protective order was sought.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:motion to compeldiscovery sanctionsfailure to supplementspoliation and sanctionsESI safe harbor
Advisory Commission Comments.
This Rule prescribes penalties for violation of pretrial procedures contained in Rules 26 through 36. While the penalties provided for herein probably lie within the inherent power of a trial court, it was felt desirable to suggest guidelines for appropriate action under the various circumstances mentioned in the Rule.
37.02: Deponents are added to the list of persons who can be sanctioned. Presumably the usual sanction would be contempt under Rule 37.02(D). Compare F.R.C.P. 37 (b)(1). [1984.]
37.05: This amendment corresponds to new Rule 26.06. [1984.]