Beck v. Sapet
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02488-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2006 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Discovery violations - M.R.C.P. 37 Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER, P.J., CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): DIAZ, J. Dissenting Author : EASLEY, J. Dissent Joined By : SMITH, C.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-10-2004 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Case Number: A-2004-2003-73 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JOHN BECK, JR. AND KIM BECK |
JAMES (JAY) R. FOSTER |
||
| Appellee: | MARIO SAPET, JR. d/b/a SAPET DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION | RICHARD EUGENE CASSADY, W. EDWARD HATTEN, JR. |
|
|
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: | Contract - Discovery violations - M.R.C.P. 37 |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Beck, Jr. and wife Kim Beck filed a complaint against Mario Sapet, Jr. d/b/a Sapet Design and Construction, citing numerous claims arising out of a contract whereby Sapet was to construct their new home. The Becks sought $300,000 in actual damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and $75,000 in attorney fees. Sapet responded with his answer and defenses and applied for an order to proceed with mediation pursuant to the terms of the contract and a stay of proceedings while the matter was submitted to mediation. The trial court ultimately granted Sapet’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on the basis of the Becks’ repeated failure to timely provide full and complete supplemental responses to written discovery requests. The Becks appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | To determine if a dismissal with prejudice is the proper remedy for discovery violations, the court should consider whether the discovery violation resulted from willfulness or an inability to comply; whether the deterrent value of M.R.C.P. 37 could not have been achieved through lesser sanctions; whether the other party’s trial preparation has been prejudiced; whether the failure to comply is attributable to the party itself, or their attorney; and whether the failure to comply was a consequence of simple confusion or a misunderstanding of the trial court’s order. In the present case, the trial court entered its first order to compel on May 17, 2004, because the Becks had not yet responded to any of the discovery requests propounded to them by Sapet almost a year earlier. This order was violated because the Becks did not answer Sapet’s discovery requests until July 2, 2004, well outside of the 15 days required by that order. The Becks then violated the trial court’s second order to compel entered on October 19, 2004, which gave them 10 days to supplement their discovery responses. Although the Becks filed a motion to reconsider on the tenth day after the order was entered, they failed to obtain a ruling on it and failed to supplement discovery within the time period specified in the order. The only reasons given for waiting until the tenth day to file was that the judge was unavailable and that an agreement had been reached with Sapet’s attorney regarding when the Becks would supplement discovery. Even if the judge was busy, some effort should have been made to supplement discovery and deliver the responses to Sapet’s counsel within ten days or to document the alleged agreement to the contrary. There is nothing in the case which demonstrates that the trial court abused its discretion and that the dismissal was unwarranted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
