Young v. Merritt
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01146-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01146-COA ; 2008-CT-01146-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2009 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Dismissal with prejudice - Discovery violation - M.R.C.P. 37 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-26-2008 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas Disposition: DISMISSED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: 14-CI-07-0070 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JOSEPH YOUNG |
HARVEY CURTIS CROWLEY |
|
|
| Appellee: | JAMES MERRITT | MILDRED L. SABBATINI | ||
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: | Personal injury - Dismissal with prejudice - Discovery violation - M.R.C.P. 37 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joseph Young and James Merritt were involved in an automobile accident. Young filed a complaint against Merritt alleging negligence for damages that resulted from the accident. At some point, Young’s counsel lost contact with Young. Merritt filed a motion to compel Young to respond to discovery. Having received no responses from Young, Merritt’s counsel eventually filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court granted the motion, and Young appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Young argues that the order dismissing his case with prejudice was unduly harsh and that the trial court should have considered a lesser sanction. In determining if a dismissal with prejudice is the proper remedy for discovery violations, the court considers 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. Young’s failure to reply was a result of his attorney being unable to contact him for an extended period of time. Further, Young’s attorney agreed to the order dismissing the case with prejudice. While dismissal with prejudice should only be used as a last resort, it is within the trial court’s discretion to dismiss the case with prejudice if a party fails to comply with an order to compel. The trial court did not err in enforcing the agreed order. Young was given ample time to respond to discovery and failed to do so. The order compelling discovery was signed and dated by the trial judge on March 27, 2008, and it was stamped filed by the clerk on April 1, 2008. The order required Young to serve his discovery responses by March 31, 2008. Young’s counsel argues that it was impossible for him to comply with an order that was not entered until the day after the date stated on the order. Young’s argument is a moot point. Young’s counsel admitted that he did not send the discovery responses until April 2, 2008. Therefore, even if the deadline were April 1, Young’s counsel admittedly also missed this deadline. Second, when Young finally sent the responses, they were admittedly incomplete and unsigned because Young’s attorney was still unable to contact Young. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
