Markstrom v. Guard Publishing Co.

When a court imposes the sanction of dismissal under ORCP 46, the court is required to “explain why that sanction is just.” Pamplin v. Victoria, 319 Or 429 (1994).

Plaintiff appealed a general judgment of dismissal. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case for abuse of discretion. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that their action did not threaten the integrity of the judicial process because she did not disobey a court order or disregard its authority. In response, Defendant argued that there was a duty to preserve the emails and Plaintiff failed that duty, therefore dismissal was appropriate. When a court imposes the sanction of dismissal under ORCP 46, the court is required to “explain why that sanction is just.” Pamplin v. Victoria, 319 Or 429 (1994). The Court held that the trial court failed to offer such explanation because it “focused on plaintiff’s conduct without also considering the effect and relative magnitude of that conduct in the circumstances of the whole case”. Reversed and remanded.