Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., et al. v. Parker
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00740-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-00740-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-30-2005 |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Number of interrogatories - M.R.C.P. 33 - Attorney civility Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J., Dissents to the Order and Files Separate Written Statement Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal Nature of the Case: Petiton for Interlocutory Appeal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-18-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Case Number: 2002-270-CV9 |
|
| Note: | Petition for Interlocutory Appeal | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company |
|||
| Appellee: | Kim Parker |
|
||
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: | Insurance - Number of interrogatories - M.R.C.P. 33 - Attorney civility |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company have filed a Combined Petition and Brief for Interlocutory Appeal and Motion for Stay. After Farm Bureau filed its petition for interlocutory appeal, with voluminous attached exhibits, the plaintiff/respondent, Kim Parker filed her six-volume response in opposition to the petition for interlocutory appeal, which response likewise contains voluminous exhibits. Farm Bureau then filed its reply in rebuttal to Parker’s response. Thereafter, Parker filed her motion to strike all rebuttal pleadings and attachments previously filed by Farm Bureau. Finally, Farm Bureau filed its response to Parker’s motion to strike. The nature of this case is a bad faith insurance claim for Farm Bureau’s alleged failure to in good faith provide coverage under a homeowner’s policy as a result of damage to Parker’s home due to mold infestation allegedly caused by a leak in a sewage drainage pipe. The actual cause of the mold infestation is hotly disputed. The trial court entered orders, as submitted by Parker, on Parker’s motion to compel as to each of the three Farm Bureau defendants. By separate order, the trial court considered the Farm Bureau defendants’ motion for a protective order in response to Parker’s motion to compel; however, the trial court neither granted nor denied the motion for a protective order, but instead ordered the parties to comply with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied Parker’s motion for sanctions and also denied the Farm Bureau defendants’ motion for reconsideration and motion for sanctions. It is from this order that Farm Bureau petitions for an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The language contained in the pleadings filed by both Farm Bureau and Parker is more than a little contentious. It has become routine for parties to petition for interlocutory appeals from trial court rulings regarding denial of summary judgments, discovery disputes and simple evidentiary rulings. The mind-set of many attorneys is that if a perceived unfavorable pre-trial ruling is received from the trial court, then attempt to abruptly halt the trial court proceedings and file an interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court. The words and actions of the parties and attorneys directed toward each other in this case compel the Court to address such actions and similar actions in other cases from the standpoint of civility and professionalism, as these traits relate to the interaction among members of the bar with each other. The Court is increasingly being called upon by civil litigants unhappy with trial court rulings concerning, inter alia, discovery issues, to “micro-manage” discovery at the trial court level. The Court does not have the resources to serve as trial court magistrates, nor is it in the best position to address such issues. What is being witnessed more and more, especially by way of these interlocutory appeals, amounts to nothing more than “Rambo-type” tactics in an effort to, inter alia, force a settlement. Lawyers need to remember that while they are compelled under their oaths to be zealous advocates for their clients, they also owe an absolute duty, as officers of the court, to adhere to moral standards of fundamental decency, and to aid the trial courts to bring about fair and expeditious resolutions of the pending cases in which they are involved. Our trial judges need to resolve these pre-trial issues. Our trial judges are likewise in a much better position to decide which parties and/or lawyers need to be sanctioned for their behavior, and our trial judges should unhesitatingly exercise this inherent power and authority. In this case, Parker’s interrogatories far exceed the number allowed pursuant to M.R.C.P. 33, and, while, unlike Rule 33, M.R.C.P. 34 does not place a number limit on the requests for production of documents, the tenor of the rule and the comments, and a reading of the rules of discovery in toto, clearly reveal a requirement of reasonableness and fair play and a proscription of attempts to unreasonably burden a party with discovery. As Rule 33 unequivocally mandates, if a party wishes to submit more than thirty interrogatories, that party shall seek leave of the court, and such granting by the court of additional interrogatories is permissible only “upon a showing of necessity.” The subject written interrogatories and requests for production of documents, are in fact, grossly excessive in number, unduly burdensome, oppressive, confusing as drafted, and fail to comply with the rules of civil procedure. Therefore, the trial judge abused his discretion in the entry of these orders, and these discovery orders are set aside and the matter remanded matter to the trial court to visit anew all discovery issues which were pending before the trial court prior to the entry of these orders. The attorneys for Parker and Farm Bureau, prior to attempting to schedule a hearing before the trial court, should commence good faith efforts to at least narrow the disputed issues, if not in fact resolve them all. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
