- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 03-22-2017
- Case #: A156394
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J., & Egan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed the trial court’s grant of Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Defendant assigned legal error to the trial court’s reasoning, and abuse of discretion in granting a new trial. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred by creating an ambiguity about what Defendant’s obligations were to adhere to an in limine discovery production order. Plaintiff responded that, although the trial court’s ruling was not based on misconduct, a new trial was appropriate because the court found that (1) Defendant had an obligation to produce a certain letter under the in limine order, (2) Defendant improperly withheld the letter, and (3) Plaintiff’s rights were materially affected. Under ORCP 64(B)(2), a new trial may be granted for misconduct of the prevailing party if that misconduct materially affected the substantial rights of the moving party. D.C. Thompson and Co. v. Hauge, 300 Or 651 (1986). The Court concluded (1) the trial court’s in limine order encompassed the letter, and (2) there was no reading of the record that could have led Defendant to believe otherwise. Therefore, Defendant’s failure to produce it violated the in limine order which constituted misconduct that materially affected the Plaintiff’s rights. Affirmed.