Haley v. Harbin
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00989-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-25-2005 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Emergency Petition for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Order filed by counsel for Charles T. Haley, M.D., is granted. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Discovery - Excessive interrogatories - M.R.C.P. 26(d) - M.R.C.P. 11 - M.R.C.P. 26 - M.R.C.P. 37 - M.R.C.P. 33(a) - M.R.C.P. 36(a) Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : To Deny: Graves, J. Nature of the Case: Petition for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-04-2005 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Case Number: 2004-0264CVL |
|
| Note: | The stay entered by this Court on May 25, 2005, is hereby lifted. The circuit court's order compelling Haley to respond to Harbin's Amended Requests for Admissions and Second Set of Interrogatories is vacated. This matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of Grenada County, Mississippi, for further proceedings consistent with this order. All costs of this appeal are taxed to Michael Harbin, et al. This order shall be published, and the Clerk of this Court shall spread this order upon the minutes of the Court and shall forthwith forward a true certified copy hereof to West Publishing Company for publication as soon as practical in the advanced sheets of the Southern Reporter, Second Series (Mississippi Edition). | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles T. Haley, M.D. |
|||
| Appellee: | Michael Harbin, Individually and Jacqueline Harbin, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Madison Parker Harbin, Deceased |
|
||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Discovery - Excessive interrogatories - M.R.C.P. 26(d) - M.R.C.P. 11 - M.R.C.P. 26 - M.R.C.P. 37 - M.R.C.P. 33(a) - M.R.C.P. 36(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles T. Haley, M.D. filed an Emergency Petition for Permission to Appeal Interlocutory Order seeking leave to appeal from the order signed by the Circuit Court of Grenada County, Mississippi on May 4, 2005, and entered on or about June 6, 2005, in cause number 2004-0264CVL, in which the circuit court granted Michael Harbin’s motion to compel certain discovery responses. The trial court ordered Haley to respond to Harbin’s Amended Requests for Admissions and 2nd Set of Interrogatories. The Amended Requests for Admissions are 33 pages in length and contain approximately 250 separate requests for admissions. The 2nd Set of Interrogatories attaches 117 pages of printouts from a fetal heart monitoring device. On each printout, numerous marks made by the device were highlighted and lettered by Harbin. The interrogatories direct Haley to answer numerous questions regarding each highlighted and lettered mark. The first interrogatory alone directs Haley to make 1,802 separate responses. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Discovery methods, including but not limited to, interrogatories and requests for admissions, are not to be used as a ruse or stratagem to obfuscate the truth or to trick an opposing party into admitting a disputed fact. M.R.C.P. 26(d) allows a protective order to be entered to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense when justice requires. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 11, 26, and 37, the trial courts have the authority to impose sanctions for discovery abuses, and they should act promptly to sanction those who abuse the rules. M.R.C.P. 33(a), which governs written interrogatories, provides that any party may serve as a matter of right upon any other party written interrogatories not to exceed thirty in number. M.R.C.P. 36(a), which governs requests for admissions, requires that each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. Although not limited to a specific number, the requests must be reasonable and must be unambiguous. A request is ambiguous if the request is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. In this case, the subject requests for admissions and written interrogatories are grossly excessive in number, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Many are confusing, and therefore, ambiguous and fail to comply with the above stated rules of civil procedure. The trial court’s order compelling discovery shall be set aside, and this matter shall be remanded to the trial court to reconsider all discovery issues which were pending in the trial court prior to the entry of this order. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
