sanction for a discovery violation in Oregon

2026State v. Cunningham, 197 Or App 264 , 105 P3d 929 , rev den, 339 Or 406 (2005) (“ ‘When, as here, a party subject to a sanction for a discovery violation does not deny at trial that it is subject to some sanction, its failure to object to the particular sanction imposed by the judge or, in the alternative, to argue for some other sanction, fails to pre- serve a claim on appeal that the judge erred in failing to con- sider the availability of a less onerous sanction.’ ” (Quoting State v. Mai, 294 Or 269, 343 , 656 P2d 315 (1982))).

2026State v. Cunningham, 197 Or App 264 , 105 P3d 929 , rev den, 339 Or 406 (2005) (“ ‘When, as here, a party subject to a sanction for a discovery violation does not deny at trial that it is subject to some sanction, its failure to object to the particular sanction imposed by the judge or, in the alternative, to argue for some other sanction, fails to pre- serve a claim on appeal that the judge erred in failing to con- sider the availability of a less onerous sanction.’ ” (Quoting State v. Mai, 294 Or 269, 343 , 656 P2d 315 (1982))).

2026State v. Cunningham, 197 Or App 264 , 105 P3d 929 , rev den, 339 Or 406 (2005) (“ ‘When, as here, a party subject to a sanction for a discovery violation does not deny at trial that it is subject to some sanction, its failure to object to the particular sanction imposed by the judge or, in the alternative, to argue for some other sanction, fails to pre- serve a claim on appeal that the judge erred in failing to con- sider the availability of a less onerous sanction.’ ” (Quoting State v. Mai, 294 Or 269, 343 , 656 P2d 315 (1982))).

2026State v. Cunningham, 197 Or App 264 , 105 P3d 929 , rev den, 339 Or 406 (2005) (“ ‘When, as here, a party subject to a sanction for a discovery violation does not deny at trial that it is subject to some sanction, its failure to object to the particular sanction imposed by the judge or, in the alternative, to argue for some other sanction, fails to pre- serve a claim on appeal that the judge erred in failing to con- sider the availability of a less onerous sanction.’ ” (Quoting State v. Mai, 294 Or 269, 343 , 656 P2d 315 (1982))).

2025The first Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 168 (2025) 171 is “prejudice,” which the court used to refer specifically to harm to a party’s inability to prepare in advance for trial and to avoid surprise during trial.

2025The first Nonprecedential Memo Op: 338 Or App 168 (2025) 171 is “prejudice,” which the court used to refer specifically to harm to a party’s inability to prepare in advance for trial and to avoid surprise during trial.

2025In State v. Dyson, 292 Or 26 , 636 P2d 961 (1981), the Supreme Court recognized two kinds of harm that can warrant a sanction for a discovery violation.

2025In State v. Dyson, 292 Or 26 , 636 P2d 961 (1981), the Supreme Court recognized two kinds of harm that can warrant a sanction for a discovery violation.

2023As a sanction for a discovery violation, a court may order exclusion of a witness only when exclusion “achieves the purpose of the discovery statutes and the other party has been prejudiced.” Ben, 310 Or at 317 .

2023As a sanction for a discovery violation, a court may order exclusion of a witness only when exclusion “achieves the purpose of the discovery statutes and the other party has been prejudiced.” Ben, 310 Or at 317 .

2015See Johnson v. Eugene Emergency Physicians, P.C., 159 Or App 167, 171 , 974 P2d 803 , rev den, 329 Or 126 (1999) (accepting, for purposes of deciding the case, the parties’ agreement that “the standards applicable to a sanction for a discovery violation under ORCP 46 B(2) are also applicable to ORCP 54 B(1)”; ORCP 46 B(2) requires “findings of fact and [an explanation oí] why the sanction of dismissal is ‘just’”); Horton v. Nelson, 252 Or App 611, 615-21 , 288 P3d 967 (2012) (reviewing for whether the complaint stated a claim after dismissal that was based, in part, on failure to comply with o

2015See Johnson v. Eugene Emergency Physicians, P.C., 159 Or App 167, 171 , 974 P2d 803 , rev den, 329 Or 126 (1999) (accepting, for purposes of deciding the case, the parties’ agreement that “the standards applicable to a sanction for a discovery violation under ORCP 46 B(2) are also applicable to ORCP 54 B(1)”; ORCP 46 B(2) requires “findings of fact and [an explanation oí] why the sanction of dismissal is ‘just’”); Horton v. Nelson, 252 Or App 611, 615-21 , 288 P3d 967 (2012) (reviewing for whether the complaint stated a claim after dismissal that was based, in part, on failure to comply with o

2007As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000), “[w]hen, as here, a party subject to a sanction for a discovery violation does not deny at trial that it is subject to some sanction, its failure to object to the particular sanction imposed by the judge or, in the alternative, to argue for some other sanction, fails to preserve a claim on appeal that the judge erred in failing to consider the availability of a less onerous sanction.” (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) See also Peeples v. Lampert, 209 Or App 17, 22 , 146 P3d 352 (2006), rev allowed, 34

2007As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343 , 15 P3d 22 (2000), “[w]hen, as here, a party subject to a sanction for a discovery violation does not deny at trial that it is subject to some sanction, its failure to object to the particular sanction imposed by the judge or, in the alternative, to argue for some other sanction, fails to preserve a claim on appeal that the judge erred in failing to consider the availability of a less onerous sanction.” (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) See also Peeples v. Lampert, 209 Or App 17, 22 , 146 P3d 352 (2006), rev allowed, 34

1993The Court relied primarily on two earlier opinions in which it had concluded that evidence preclusion as a sanction for a discovery violation did not violate the Sixth Amendment: Taylor v. Illinois, 484 US 400 , 108 S Ct 646 , 98 L Ed 2d 798 (1988); and United States v. Nobles, 422 US 225 , 95 S Ct 2160 , 45 L Ed 2d 141 (1975).

1993The Court relied primarily on two earlier opinions in which it had concluded that evidence preclusion as a sanction for a discovery violation did not violate the Sixth Amendment: Taylor v. Illinois, 484 US 400 , 108 S Ct 646 , 98 L Ed 2d 798 (1988); and United States v. Nobles, 422 US 225 , 95 S Ct 2160 , 45 L Ed 2d 141 (1975).

1993The Court relied primarily on two earlier opinions in which it had concluded that evidence preclusion as a sanction for a discovery violation did not violate the Sixth Amendment: Taylor v. Illinois, 484 US 400 , 108 S Ct 646 , 98 L Ed 2d 798 (1988); and United States v. Nobles, 422 US 225 , 95 S Ct 2160 , 45 L Ed 2d 141 (1975).

1993The Court relied primarily on two earlier opinions in which it had concluded that evidence preclusion as a sanction for a discovery violation did not violate the Sixth Amendment: Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988); and United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975).

1993The Court relied primarily on two earlier opinions in which it had concluded that evidence preclusion as a sanction for a discovery violation did not violate the Sixth Amendment: Taylor v. Illinois, 484 US 400 , 108 S Ct 646 , 98 L Ed 2d 798 (1988); and United States v. Nobles, 422 US 225 , 95 S Ct 2160 , 45 L Ed 2d 141 (1975).

1993The Court relied primarily on two earlier opinions in which it had concluded that evidence preclusion as a sanction for a discovery violation did not violate the Sixth Amendment: Taylor v. Illinois, 484 US 400 , 108 S Ct 646 , 98 L Ed 2d 798 (1988); and United States v. Nobles, 422 US 225 , 95 S Ct 2160 , 45 L Ed 2d 141 (1975).