The district court then found that a discovery error made by Beatrice impaired the plaintiffs preparation process, but recommended that its earlier denial of motion for relief from judgment be sustained. On appeal, the circuit court judge held that: first, the district court did not abuse its discretion by its determination regarding pretrial discovery, namely, the district court had determined that the operator's failure to disclose a report during pretrial discovery did not warrant relief from judgment. Second, the judge held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the operator's nondisclosure of a report was roughly equivalent to residents' improper continuation of prosecution of their claim, and thus that monetary sanctions should not be imposed upon either party. Finally, the judge found that the operator's nondisclosure of report did not constitute “fraud on the court” which would trigger entry of default.