Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. McGill, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00234-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2004 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Punitive sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37 - Constructive criminal contempt Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: Sanctioned Appellant for failure to produce certain documents. Case Number: 251-02-114 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cooper Tire & Rubber Company |
SAM E. SCOTT
DAVID DIAL |
||
| Appellee: | Johnnie McGill and Dorothy Paige, Individually, on behalf of the Estate of Donald Paige, and the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Donald Paige | JOHN LEE DAVIDSON JUDSON MORGAN LEE JOHN D. GIDDENS |
|
|
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: | Wrongful death - Punitive sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37 - Constructive criminal contempt |
| Summary of the Facts: | John McGill and Dorothy Paige, individually, on behalf of the Estate of Donald Paige, and the wrongful death beneficiaries of Donald Paige filed a complaint against several parties including Cooper Tire & Rubber Company. The court ordered that certain documents be produced and issued several immediate and prospective sanctions if Cooper Tire failed to meet specific deadlines, which it did not. On the morning prior to a hearing regarding Cooper Tire’s failure, Cooper Tire and the plaintiffs reached a settlement. The court reconsidered the sanctions and dismissed all sanctions except for a $10,000 fine for a one-day violation of the court’s order. Cooper Tire appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Cooper Tire argues that sole reason for the sanctions was its failure to comply with the July 30 order. However, plaintiffs argue that the sanctions arose from the failure of Cooper Tire to contact the trial court prior to the August 2 deadline to inform it that it could not satisfy the deadline for producing certain documents. Concerning the fine, the trial court’s desire not to be oppressive serves as a reasonable explanation for why the fine was substantially less that what could have been imposed. The court acknowledged that Cooper Tire filed a motion to reconsider the July 30 order, but noted that this was not done until August 2, 2002, two days after the deadline had passed. Crediting the filing of the motion to reconsider, the trial judge sanctioned Cooper Tire for the day of August 1, 2002. Cooper Tire argues that because M.R.C.P. 37 does not authorize punitive sanctions, the July 30 order was beyond the authority of the trial court and was therefore an abuse of discretion. Rule 37(e) gives great flexibility to the trial courts in the form of a general grant of power which enables it to deal summarily with discovery abuses, whenever and however the abuse is brought to the attention of the court. Rule 37(e) does not enumerate the sanctions available to the court and courts should have considerable latitude in fashioning sanctions suitable for particular applications. Little reliance should be placed on Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, or analysis thereof, because it does not contain a provision like our Rule 37(e). Little reliance should have been placed on Batson v. Neal Spelce Assocs., Inc., 765 F.2d 511(5th Cir. 1985)) in the decision of Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Winters, 815 So.2d 1168 (Miss. 2002). Thus, Winters is overruled to the extent that it holds that Rule 37 limits the imposition of expenses and attorney’s fees to those caused directly by the other party’s failure to comply with the court’s orders. State courts have the authority under Rule 37 to impose purely monetary, noncompensatory fines for a violation of a discovery order but the offending party must be held in contempt. In classifying a finding of contempt as civil or criminal, the determination should focus on the character of the sanction itself and not the intent of the court imposing the sanction. Although the trial court here considered and declined to hold Cooper Tire in contempt, Cooper Tire was effectively held in contempt, because it was based on a failure to obey a discovery order. The fine imposed was to punish Cooper Tire’s failure to obey the discovery order and to vindicate the authority of the trial court which is constructive criminal contempt. A person charged with constructive criminal contempt is afforded certain procedural safeguards such as being tried by another judge where the trial judge has substantial personal involvement in the prosecution. Therefore, Cooper Tire is entitled to have proceedings before a different judge. Neither the fact that the parties entered into a settlement nor the plaintiffs’ failure to attach a good faith affidavit to a motion to compel foreclosed the court’s authority to sanction Cooper Tire. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion before a different trial judge during which Cooper Tire shall be allowed to present a defense regarding whether it is guilty of contempt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
