Christopher Myers v. Jeffery Keith Harris and Progressive Specialty Insurance Company

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/25/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080497 C h r i s t o p h e r Myers v. J e f f e r y K e i t h H a r r i s and P r o g r e s s i v e S p e c i a l t y Insurance Company Appeal from Cullman C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-900149) THOMAS, Judge. Christopher complaint Myers appeals against Jeffery from a judgment d i s m i s s i n g h i s Keith Harris and S p e c i a l t y I n s u r a n c e Company f o r l a c k o f p r o s e c u t i o n his failure t o respond to discovery Progressive following requests, his failure to 2080497 obey a discovery hearing. We order, affirm and that part his failure to of the judgment c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t P r o g r e s s i v e , b u t we r e v e r s e judgment On dismissing June alleging that 16, the complaint 2008, Harris Myers had against sued insurance Harris liable policy. and to Along Progressive him with with 2008, Harris answered and Progressive, motor-vehicle i n j u r i e s t o Myers and t h a t insurance f o r benefits the carrier, under complaint, Myers's Myers interrogatories. same. f o r production. On August interrogatories. counsel, i t s discovery requesting requests d i d the Myers's Progressive's to and On served July 7, On On 2008, August 17, with July 31, Progressive 22, 2008, h a v i n g r e c e i v e d f r o m M y e r s no r e s p o n s e requests, wrote a l e t t e r a response w i t h i n 14 days. to the l e t t e r , the that p a r t of the 2008, P r o g r e s s i v e a n s w e r e d t h e c o m p l a i n t and s e r v e d Myers interrogatories a Harris. Harris P r o g r e s s i v e , Myers's underinsured-motorist potentially at dismissing n e g l i g e n t l y caused a c o l l i s i o n that resulted i n personal was appear a n d , on S e p t e m b e r to Myers's Myers 5, 2 0 0 8 , counsel d i d not respond Progressive filed a R u l e 3 7 , A l a . R. C i v . P . , m o t i o n t o c o m p e l M y e r s t o r e s p o n d t o its discovery requests. 2 2080497 Myers trial filed nothing court granted in opposition t h e m o t i o n on production court's w i t h i n 10 September 10, days. moved t o no to the motion. entered an order response court Progressive's matter his dismiss motion i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and for a hearing counsel On on appeared December the 2008, for his failure The day, Myers hearing scheduled on willful, simply s o u g h t by greatly Myers 29, i t that 2008, would sanctions, 2008. and the trial court t o a p p e a r and filed i t set a Rule not prosecute 59(e), Ala. had R. not calendar"; long Progressive's prejudiced by that he contumacious time to Civ. P., engaged a l l the that of his 18, get in "[i]t information" r e q u e s t s ; t h a t he dismissal 3 action. d i d not conduct but gather discovery the nor Myers's a p p e a r e d a t the December his a the Myers his date ... trial consider dismissed the or filed the Neither b e c a u s e " f o r some r e a s o n intentional, took 2008, hearing. m o t i o n , a s s e r t i n g t h a t he h a d 2008, September for trial S e p t e m b e r 25, on to obey the complaint. December 18, complaint same and, Myers's one at 22, requests stating as The ordering Myers f a i l e d On motion. 2008, 2008, o r d e r , Progressive that September 10, Myers to respond to P r o g r e s s i v e ' s for to claims would be against 2080497 H a r r i s because the s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g his complaint not have had expired; and his claim dismissed Progressive complaint. On February denied 3, 2009. timely against actions. court Harris compel d i s c o v e r y 2008, by both Myers should because and served Progressive Following postjudgment appealed appeal to that and hearing, motion the on Alabama to this only to dismiss his responses to the Harris, and the the court 11, 2009. Court, which February Supreme on trial court pursuant to § 12-2-7(6), 1975. Standard of Rule trial set Myers's postjudgment motion f o r a hearing Myers's Code 24, requests t r a n s f e r r e d the Ala. the 1 court Myers moved t o December discovery trial had that 41(b), That Ala. rule R. Civ. provides, P., Review governs in pertinent the dismissal of part: "For f a i l u r e of the p l a i n t i f f to prosecute or to c o m p l y w i t h t h e s e r u l e s o r any o r d e r o f c o u r t , a d e f e n d a n t may move f o r d i s m i s s a l o f a n a c t i o n o r o f any c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . Unless the court In his appellate brief, Harris states that, at the D e c e m b e r 18, 2 0 0 8 , h e a r i n g , he o r a l l y j o i n e d P r o g r e s s i v e ' s motion to dismiss. The r e c o r d , however, i s s i l e n t with r e s p e c t t o what o c c u r r e d a t the h e a r i n g . 1 4 2080497 in i t s order f o r d i s m i s s a l otherwise specifies, a d i s m i s s a l u n d e r t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n ... o p e r a t e s a s a n a d j u d i c a t i o n upon t h e m e r i t s . " I n R i d d l e s p r i g g e r v . E r v i n , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 4 8 6 , 487 the Alabama Supreme C o u r t (Ala. 1987), stated: " R u l e 4 1 ( b ) h a s b e e n c o n s t r u e d t o mean t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t has t h e i n h e r e n t power t o d i s m i s s a cause f o r want o f p r o s e c u t i o n o r f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h court rules or orders. ... S u c h a d i s m i s s a l i s generally considered to be within the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d w i l l be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l o n l y f o r a n a b u s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . " In 1989), Iverson t h e supreme applicable failure v. X p e r t court Tune, Inc., discussed 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 8 2 , 87 the standard of (Ala. review t o a d i s m i s s a l u n d e r R u l e 3 7 , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r t o comply w i t h discovery rules: "The trial court i s vested with broad and considerable discretion i n controlling the discovery process and i n making r u l i n g s on a l l m a t t e r s pertaining to discovery, including the authority to make s u c h r u l i n g s a s a r e n e c e s s a r y to protect the i n t e g r i t y of the discovery process. Furthermore, d e e p l y r o o t e d i n t h e common l a w i s t h e c o u r t ' s p o w e r to manage i t s a f f a i r s i n order t o achieve the orderly and e x p e d i t i o u s disposition of cases, i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y t o impose r e a s o n a b l e and appropriate sanctions f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h discovery. "The c h o i c e o f d i s c o v e r y s a n c t i o n s i s w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t g r o s s a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , a n d t h e n o n l y upon a s h o w i n g t h a t such abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n r e s u l t e d i n s u b s t a n t i a l harm t o a p p e l l a n t . 5 2080497 "We r e c o g n i z e t h a t the s a n c t i o n of d i s m i s s a l i s the most severe s a n c t i o n t h a t a c o u r t may apply. J u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n m u s t be c a r e f u l l y e x e r c i s e d t o assure t h a t the s i t u a t i o n warrants the i m p o s i t i o n of such a s a n c t i o n . D i s m i s s a l o r d e r s m u s t be c a r e f u l l y scrutinized, and the plaintiff's conduct must m a n d a t e d i s m i s s a l . We h a v e h e l d t h a t ' w i l l f u l n e s s ' on the p a r t of the noncomplying p a r t y i s a key factor supporting a dismissal. I f one p a r t y has acted with willful and deliberate disregard of r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y r e q u e s t s f o r t h e e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e , the a p p l i c a t i o n of even so stringent a sanction as dismissal is fully j u s t i f i e d a n d s h o u l d n o t be d i s t u r b e d . " (Citations On the omitted.) appeal, limits because, of he Myers contends i t s discretion says, his He also contends warranted at a l l , i t was Progressive and the was merely assuming authorized as to the discovery requests nor Dismissal of the Claim Against Ala. R. Civ. P., 37(d), dealing with rule a party's states, in pertinent part: and not dismissal as to the was claim against Harris, to against respond to him. Progressive provides to comply w i t h 6 complaint compel him sanctions failure his the claims n e i t h e r moved t o Rule exceeded negligent only because H a r r i s had sought court dismissing that, not trial by conduct willful. against that the method discovery. for That 2080497 " I f a p a r t y ... f a i l s ... (2) t o s e r v e a n s w e r s o r o b j e c t i o n s t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s submitted under Rule 33, a f t e r p r o p e r s e r v i c e o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , o r (3) t o s e r v e a w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e to a request f o r p r o d u c t i o n o r i n s p e c t i o n s u b m i t t e d u n d e r R u l e 34, a f t e r proper s e r v i c e of the request, the court i n w h i c h t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g o n m o t i o n may make s u c h o r d e r s i n r e g a r d t o t h e f a i l u r e as a r e j u s t , and among o t h e r s i t may t a k e a n y a c t i o n a u t h o r i z e d u n d e r p a r a g r a p h s ( A ) , ( B ) , a n d (C) o f s u b d i v i s i o n ( b ) ( 2 ) of t h i s r u l e . " Rule 37(b)(2) fails t o obey orders [a]n provides, a i n regard order i n pertinent part, discovery order, to the f a i l u r e that, the court "may as a r e j u s t , " i fa party make such i n c l u d i n g "(C) ... d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g or any p a r t thereof." We r e j e c t M y e r s ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s f a i l u r e Progressive's order directing days, and sanctions mere discovery requests, h i s failure his failure to appear as to the present Construction opposed at a to t o obey a c o u r t d i s c o v e r y responses f o rh i s disobedience negligence, similar him t o provide to respond hearing w i t h i n 10 concerning to the court order c o n s t i t u t e d to willfulness. one, T r i - S h e l t e r s , C o . , 622 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 I n two I n c . v . A.G. ( A l a . 1993), cases Gaston and N a p i e r v. M c D o u g a l , 601 S o . 2 d 446 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t h a d no trouble finding that the p l a i n t i f f s ' 7 c o n d u c t was w i l l f u l and 2080497 justified the i m p o s i t i o n of a d e f a u l t judgment or a d i s m i s s a l . In T r i - S h e l t e r s , the c o u r t observed considerable s o p h i s t i c a t i o n to court's to respond So. order 2d a t 330. its We discretion hold in was " t h a t i t does not r e q u i r e understand not merely that the t r i a l dismissing that the trial aspirational." court Myers's was w e l l complaint 622 within as to Progressive. Dismissal Alabama presented not not of the Claims appellate courts sanctions order. Island have Harris not considered b y M y e r s ' s s e c o n d a r g u m e n t -- t h a t a t r i a l dismiss a p l a i n t i f f ' s moved Against to compel against noted issue court may c l a i m s a g a i n s t a c o d e f e n d a n t who h a s written discovery the p l a i n t i f f A 30-year-old the responses for violating a d e c i s i o n b y t h e Supreme C o u r t or sought discovery o f Rhode that "those state courts which have considered the q u e s t i o n have h e l d t h a t a d i s m i s s a l o f a p l a i n t i f f ' s claim against defendants with respect t o whom p l a i n t i f f i s n o t i n b r e a c h o f o b l i g a t i o n o r as t o defendants who have not sought such relief i s improper and u n a u t h o r i z e d . " Harrigan A.2d court 514, v. Mason 517 & Winograd, (1979). The I n c . , 121 cases cited R . I . 209, by t h e Rhode f o r the proposition stated are of questionable 8 214, 397 Island validity 2080497 b e c a u s e , among o t h e r adoption of rules t h i n g s , many o f t h e d e c i s i o n s p r e c e d e t h e patterned on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "In view of the f a c t t h a t the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure are patterned after, and are s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r t o , the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure, 'a presumption arises that cases construing the Federal Rules are authority f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Alabama Rules.'" Ex parte Assured Inc., Morris, 530 Investors 362 grounds, So. Ex So. 2d 785, Life 228, 2d parte I n s . Co. 231 Norfolk 787 v. ( A l a . 1988) National ( A l a . 1978), S. Ry. Co., (quoting Union Assocs., overruled 897 So. on 2d other 290 ( A l a . 2004)). Among the more whose d i s c o v e r y have found recent rules decisions are patterned few cases that presented issue very by this Carriers, state-court I n c . , 192 Hossainkhail v. Gebrehiwot, have 227, sister considered We decisions Ga. A p p . our on t h e f e d e r a l appeal. representative of Md. In S i n g l e t o n , the p l a i n t i f f was struck tractor-trailer S.E.2d App. rules, the focus Singleton 384 143 will 202 716, states v. precise on two Eastern (1989), 795 we A.2d and 816 (2002). was by a 9 i n j u r e d when h i s v e h i c l e truck owned by Eastern 2080497 Carriers, States the Fire driver, with discovery t o respond, for plaintiff's Cantrell, and t h e i n s u r e r . plaintiff moved by I n s u r a n c e Company. written failed the Inc.,driven failed filed The a n d , when a motion to that trial as t o a l l t h r e e by United sued t h e owner, The owner s e r v e d t o respond sanctions. complaint The p l a i n t i f f requests, t h e owner and i n s u r e d the p l a i n t i f f the plaintiff t o compel. motion, court When t h e owner dismissed defendants, even the though t w o o f t h e m , t h e d r i v e r a n d t h e i n s u r e r , h a d made n o d i s c o v e r y requests of the p l a i n t i f f . reversed the dismissal holding as The Georgia to the driver Court of Appeals and the i n s u r e r , that, "'[t]here i s no a u t h o r i t y f o r a c o - d e f e n d a n t t o b e c o m e t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o f a d i s m i s s a l u n d e r [§ 9 - 1 1 ¬ 37, G a . Code A n n . , w h i c h i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o R u l e 3 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] m e r e l y b e c a u s e o f a f a i l u r e by t h e p l a i n t i f f t o comply w i t h t h e other co-defendant's discovery actions.' Johnson v. Martin, 137 G a . A p p . 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 , 2 2 3 S.E. 2 d 465 (1976). Since the requested d i s c o v e r y was s o u g h t o n l y b y [ t h e o w n e r ] , we a r e c o n s t r a i n e d t o h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g d i s m i s s a l as t o the other two d e f e n d a n t s , [ t h e d r i v e r and t h e insurer]." Singleton, 192 G a . A p p . a t 2 2 8 , 384 S . E . 2 d Commenting Supreme Court on the decision stated: 10 a t 202. i n Singleton, the Georgia 2080497 "The r u l e set forth in Singleton is sound i n s o f a r as i t p e r t a i n s t o w r i t t e n d i s c o v e r y . Where a p a r t y f a i l s to respond to w r i t t e n d i s c o v e r y , a n o n - r e q u e s t i n g p a r t y s h o u l d n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o t a k e advantage of the p a r t y ' s f a i l u r e to respond. Why? Because the n o n - r e q u e s t i n g p a r t y c a n n o t be s a i d t o have been p r e j u d i c e d by the party's failure to respond. However, t h a t r a t i o n a l e does not h o l d t r u e for deposition discovery." South Georgia S.E.2d 793, Singleton, Med. 795 we C t r . v. (1998). need Washington, Although not decide we 269 Ga. question whether 366, the 367, 497 r a t i o n a l e of i t is correct because S i n g l e t o n i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e b a s i s t h a t H a r r i s , t h e defendant here, and the was insurer party." in Harris production not a "nonrequesting Singleton propounded to Myers, just I n H o s s a i n k h a i l v. three to be injured in a as any discovery court dismissed to the The requests, compel and complaint a he the p l a i n t i f f sued accident. A l l and to d i d not of the dismiss. him three requests for respond to defendants The as t o a l l t h r e e d e f e n d a n t s . 11 for caused o n l y two motions requests a l l e g e d , had plaintiff but "requesting did. interrogatories to the p l a i n t i f f . motions was supra, motor-vehicle production of the but Progressive Gebrehiwot, propounded p a r t y , " as t h e d r i v e r i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and d e f e n d a n t s whose n e g l i g e n c e , defendants filed were, co- trial The 2080497 plaintiff a p p e a l e d , m a k i n g t h e same a r g u m e n t t h a t M y e r s here -- that case with the t r i a l respect to a court defendant c o m p e l n o r moved t o d i s m i s s . Maryland rejected that should who with the "notable had n e i t h e r argument based compelling difference discovery the moved on Maryland Rule correlates to Federal ... R u l e 3 7 ( b ) , a c o u r t may a w a r d s a n c t i o n s order dismissed to The C o u r t o f S p e c i a l A p p e a l s o f 433(b), which, the court explained, 37(b) n o t have makes that, under forfailure Rule Federal t o obey an i n the absence of a motion," Md. A p p . a t 730 n . 7 , 7 9 5 A . 2 d a t 824 n . 7 . 2- The c o u r t 143 stated: " I f one p a r t y i s a d i s c o v e r i n g a n d m o v i n g p a r t y ... , a n d t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s a r e d i s c o v e r i n g b u t n o t moving p a r t i e s , a c o u r t has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o impose sanctions against the offending party with respect to i t s c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e d i s c o v e r i n g b u t n o t moving parties, b a s e d on t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e o f f e n d i n g party, the need for effective relief to the d i s c o v e r i n g and moving p a r t y , and i n a d d i t i o n , the f a i l u r e t o obey an o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t . " 143 Md. A p p . a t 7 3 2 , 7 9 5 A . 2 d a t 8 2 5 . the Maryland would result court in a i n Hossainkhail determination Applying the holding of to the facts that the t r i a l authorized t o dismiss Myers's claims against both w h i c h was a d i s c o v e r i n g a n d m o v i n g p a r t y , a discovering party. 12 of this court case was Progressive, a n d H a r r i s , who was 2080497 The for same r e s u l t a different 503, 509 sued would reason. obtain See Payne ( 9 t hC i r . 1997). Exxon injuries and VECO, sustained Valdez o i l spill 1989. The discovery In Payne, while plaintiffs failed served by cleanup o f f the coast VECO and comply w i t h s e v e r a l d i s c o v e r y requests the p l a i n t i f f s failed moved t o c o m p e l , plaintiffs failed the complaint; VECO that the p l a i n t i f f s The court t o comply. joined plaintiffs for of served personal the Exxon of Alaska t o comply failed 121 F . 3 d with one repeatedly by Exxon. in to After granted that motion, and E x x o n t h e n moved t o d i s m i s s i n that motion, despite the fact h a d no u n m e t d i s c o v e r y o b l i g a t i o n t o VECO. d i s t r i c t court dismissed On a p p e a l to the United Circuit, the p l a i n t i f f s t h e a c t i o n as t o b o t h States Court of Appeals argued that formed the basis Exxon, n o t VECO, a n d t h e p l a i n t i f f s of the d i s m i s s a l motion t o any d i s c o v e r y f o rthe Ninth requests had been that served were n o t i n d e f a u l t o b l i g a t i o n o w e d t o VECO. 13 defendants. dismissal of the claims a g a i n s t VECO was i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e t h e d i s c o v e r y respect of 37, b u t t o answer Exxon's i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , Exxon the d i s t r i c t the damages initially Rule Corp., a group conducting occurred Federal v. Exxon Inc., seeking that request under The by with Ninth 2080497 Circuit Court noting that failure rejected the p l a i n t i f f s ' the p l a i n t i f f s ' t o obey although motion of Appeals only a a court order. discovering t o compel answers requests f o rproduction P., "[t]he Civ. P.,] sanctions contain claims had been The party court has argument, dismissed explained standing to for that, file a t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and responses t o under Rule provisions no s u c h 37(a)(2)(B), of Rule standing F e d . R. C i v . 37(b)(2)[, limitation." F e d . R. 121 F . 3 d a t 510. The Ninth Circuit Fed. R. C i v . P., w h i c h Civ. P., a n d w h i c h Court of Appeals i s identical quoted Rule 37(b)(2), t o Rule 37(b)(2), states, i n pertinent A l a . R. part: "'If a party ... f a i l s t o o b e y a n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e o r p e r m i t d i s c o v e r y ... t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g may make s u c h o r d e r s i n r e g a r d t o t h e f a i l u r e a s a r e j u s t , a n d among o t h e r s t h e following: " ' "'(C) proceeding Id. The c o u r t An o r d e r ... d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n o r any p a r t t h e r e o f '" concluded t h a t , under Rule or 37(b)(2), " [ t ] h e scope o f s a n c t i o n s f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h a discovery order i s committed to the sound discretion of the d i s t r i c t court. I f Congress had intended to limit the d i s t r i c t court's dismissal a u t h o r i t y t o c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y who p r o p o u n d e d 14 2080497 d i s c o v e r y , i t would n o t have chosen such sweeping language. Under Rule 3 7 ( b ) ( 2 ) , p l a i n t i f f s ' willful and r e p e a t e d v i o l a t i o n s o f d i s c o v e r y o r d e r s gave t h e district court authority to dismiss the entire 'action or proceeding.'" Id. Applying t h e h o l d i n g i n Payne t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t case would r e s u l t the authority Myers's Myers i n a determination under claims Rule against violated a 3 7 , A l a . R. both court that the t r i a l C i v . P., to dismiss and H a r r i s Progressive order court had because compelling him to provide discovery. The First, present i n contrast violation the the defendants, the t r i a l dismissed the who w e r e complaint M y e r s was i n d e f a u l t w i t h respect court dismissed the complaint had not only b u t he discovery requests. contrary Harris t o t h e Payne p l a i n t i f f s , court requests, the from Payne i n two r e s p e c t s . noti n o f a n y d i s c o v e r y o b l i g a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o VECO a t time Myers case i s d i f f e r e n t on failed had t o answer also Second, appeal, failed had j o i n e d Progressive's as t o both to respond both defendants. discovery to Harris's Harris's contention to does motion not indicate f o rsanctions M y e r s , a s VECO h a d j o i n e d E x x o n ' s m o t i o n . 15 to t o H a r r i s when Progressive's despite the record as that against The two d i f f e r e n c e s 2080497 from Payne -- obligations court dismissed court 37(b)(2)(C) in the implied in and Payne, a trial of a of i t s discovery a n d H a r r i s when t h e t r i a l that Harris against d i d not Myers unimportant, court -- a r e , a s to "dismiss[] because Rule authority, the inherent motion, join even the t h e r e o f " when a p a r t y action fails or t o obey a order. Payne stands acts 37(b)(2), f o r the proposition that w i t h i n the scope F e d . R. C i v . P., claims against failure t o obey a c o u r t by only one d e f e n d a n t . authority under Rule the trial court's was authorized by t h e r u l e . authorized a t r i a l court question i n default f o r sanctions o r any p a r t discovery court case motion gives was Progressive the absence proceeding Myers as t o b o t h Progressive's the that discretion in when order i t dismisses based on compelling 37(b)(2), However, to dismiss court the 16 Rule plaintiff's the plaintiff's discovery requested h a s t h e same A l a . R. C i v . P., we h o l d d i s m i s s a l of Myers's dismissing by a B e c a u s e an A l a b a m a c o u r t the t r i a l district of the a u t h o r i t y granted a l l defendants, whether a federal claims against deciding that that Harris Rule 37 a case does n o t answer t h e exceeded case. the limits Whether, of under i t s the 2080497 particular f a c t s of the case, the discretion in dismissing separate inquiry. Hossainkhail, We of begin is parties Ala. R. Civ. the a party's App. at most v. is Xpert P., as 121 795 be by that the A.2d 553 510. See at "the the text that So. which of allows or 2d a sanction court at order added.) court In Rule a any 87. trial part That discretion i n d i s m i s s i n g the c a s e as conclusion based court thereof" or present improperly not upon case, First, as we several noted i n o u t l i n i n g the p r o c e d u r a l reach we its factors. on We to permit exercised to H a r r i s . may 37(b)(2)(C), to provide the a 826. that is also w a r r a n t e d as t o some, b u t obey a c o u r t trial at sanction a c t i o n or p r o c e e d i n g (Emphasis a l l defendants recognizing Tune, I n c . , itself, to to F.3d 732, severe evidenced failure discovery. conclude Payne, o f d i s m i s s a l may all, "dismiss[] case i n q u i r y by the Iverson sanction Md. that dismissal apply." the 143 See the court properly exercised i t s h i s t o r y of t h i s case, Myers propounded i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s to both H a r r i s Progressive. before Progressive i t moved discovery to requests. compel answered Myers's In c o n t r a s t , the 17 Myers's that and interrogatories compliance with r e c o r d does not its own indicate 2080497 that Harris Indeed, filed and ever responded indicates the record to that the complaint Progressive) Myers's from and propounded until interrogatories. June 16 (when Myers interrogatories to Harris D e c e m b e r 18 (when t h e t r i a l court held a hearing on s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t Myers p u r s u a n t t o P r o g r e s s i v e ' s motion), Harris discovery o b l i g a t i o n s t o Myers or t o see t h a t Myers satisfied discovery o b l i g a t i o n s t o him. conclude did nothing t h a t H a r r i s was a p p a r e n t l y forward the progress either to One c o u l d satisfy reasonably as u n c o n c e r n e d as Myers w i t h of the litigation and r e c e i v e d a n u n d e s e r v e d w i n d f a l l when t h e t r i a l Myers's rules complaint a s t o h i m when he h i m s e l f of discovery. 2 d 8 2 8 , 831 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) of a failure that as discovery and n o t i n g , "the defendants themselves a Second, supra, depositions as were the Maryland moving Harris dismissed had f l o u t e d the sanction delayed c a n c e l l e d d e p o s i t i o n s f o r a second time, rescheduled court own I n c . , 778 (reversing the dismissal complaint to provide that C f . Johnson v. C i t i z e n s Bank, So. plaintiff's his for plaintiff's among o t h e r discovery things, when they on t h e d a y b e f o r e t h e t o be h e l d " ) . court one o f t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n s 18 stated i n Hossainkhail, for a trial court's making 2080497 the as d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e c i s i o n to dismiss t o a c o d e f e n d a n t who r e s p o n s e s nor "the moving party." Md. Co., lumber that the 850 most of concluding that 257 for at here, court i t . the Cf. writ claims against mill received parte (granting mandamus; plaintiffs' an inadequate i n t e n t i o n a l o b s t r u c t i o n of deposition o w n e r who subsequently died; misconduct relevant related to "[t]he o w n e r s was 825. Ex of only to prevented "the entirety damages discovery to owners from the claims," property; imposed and must and committed"). See also Harrigan v. Mason & W i n o g r a d , I n c . , R.I. 397 A.2d In at 517. 19 the that to, 214, of, of real sanction compensatory mill stating proportional at and dismissed ( A l a . 2002) d i s m i s s a l of evidence A.2d trial court's discovery which 246, i s to discovering 795 trial elderly property obtaining 732, against petition sanction for p l a i n t i f f s ' plaintiffs' to the when t h e 2d the p l a i n t i f f moving p a r t y claim So. mill's at and relief against relief App. uninsured-motorist personal-injury by discovery discovering complete Seaman T i m b e r holding 143 the and defendant n e i t h e r moved t o c o m p e l need f o r e f f e c t i v e Progressive, Myers's complaint moved f o r s a n c t i o n s satisfy effective had a plaintiff's Harrigan, discovery the Rhode be abuse 121 Island 2080497 court reversed only one defendant complaint court a j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g a l l t h r e e d e f e n d a n t s when for had failure moved to to comply dismiss with the plaintiff's discovery orders. The stated: " I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , M a s o n & W i n o g r a d was the o n l y d e f e n d a n t w h i c h moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n . The o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l , i f c o n s t r u e d t o d i s m i s s t h e action against a l l three defendants, ... orders relief which is not necessary to protect the i n t e r e s t s of the moving p a r t y (Emphasis added.) Third, Harris although the caused Myers to d i s m i s s a l of the that prejudiced was discovery. The dismissed, and, course of and requests, l a w s u i t was during conclusion to, and Myers and each that the by the each Myers's of, the the parte Seaman T i m b e r Co., other We discovery 850 20 So. was provide not abuse a t 257. was only requests. discovery escape the "proportional committed" therefore, overly 2d i t the with cannot own indicate to discovery s a n c t i o n was M y e r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o H a r r i s and was, Ex against o l d when Progressive respond. discovery compensatory failure other party's to d i d not s i x months time, served failed litigation only that p a r t y t h a t r e s p o n d e d t o any Harris claims s u f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l harm, H a r r i s ' s conduct during he Myers's As a by harsh. sanction 2080497 for an employer's Roebuck & Co., discovery 882 So. 2d court struck "'[Sears's] claims of [the s a n c t i o n was earlier Sears and Timber construe affirmative term at at 258) . but would mean that fraud a l l e g a t i o n s , "with the "More s t r i k e one Sears the and the fraud deciding whether So. its be decided not the truth of Id. court 21 258). to Sears's of the because that the employee's issue r e l a t e d to Instead, intended the court i t s order a to sanction compensatory of Id. to Seaman only a f f i r m a t i v e defenses, at in a that denial an abuse parte "overly harsh" damages." trial Ex general remaining 2d that court discovery encompass ' p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o and 850 r e l a t e to the court p a r t i c u l a r d i s c o v e r y abuse committed.'" S e a m a n T i m b e r Co., trial only o r more o f S e a r s ' s more a p p r o p r i a t e to conceded amount o f likely, the (quoting The also a l l e g a t i o n s would Sears, sanction proportionate 328 "pleadings" employee's held: In 2003), particular 2d 2d defenses fraud being (Ala. parte supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t , i n the So. So. Ex stated that "'[t]he t r i a l of 882 850 the the in as t h e y case must impose a compensatory Co., 328 employee].'" d e c i s i o n , i t had committed.'" 326, pleadings appropriate, discovery-abuse violation ( q u o t i n g Ex the parte 2080497 Based trial on court the foregoing authorities, exceeded limits the d i s m i s s i n g t h e case as t o H a r r i s . Circuit the Court cause dismissal against i s affirmed i s remanded of Myers's Myers AFFIRMED hold the in The j u d g m e n t o f t h e C u l l m a n i n part with that i t s discretion of we and r e v e r s e d i n p a r t , and i n s t r u c t i o n s to set aside complaint against Harris a more a p p r o p r i a t e I N PART; and t o impose sanction. I N PART; the REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, J . , concurs. Thompson, result, without P . J . ,and Bryan writings. 22 and Moore, J J . , concur i n the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.