Sanction of Dismissal with Prejudice Approved for Repeated Discovery Violations
ABSTRACT: A Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District ruling affirmed the dismissal of an action as a discovery sanction based on a “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court.”
In Noble v. L.D. Enterprises, Inc. the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District affirmed a dismissal with prejudice for Plaintiff’s repeated refusal to engage in discovery.
Plaintiff Brandie Noble fell in a parking lot that was controlled by Defendant L.D. Enterprises on July 14, 2014, purportedly sustaining injuries that required medical treatment. Over four years later, Noble filed a lawsuit seeking damages for her injuries. This lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by Noble on November 2, 2020 and refiled on October 18, 2021, shortly before the expiration of the statute of limitations.
On May 25, 2022, L.D. Enterprises served their Opening Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff. Noble, who was represented by counsel, failed to respond within the time allotted, and L.D. filed a motion to compel. Noble also failed to respond to the motion to compel and the trial court ordered Noble to respond to the discovery requests within 30 days. Noble did not, however, answer the defendant’s discovery.
On December 13, 2022, L.D. filed a motion to dismiss Noble’s petition with prejudice as a sanction for her failure to respond to outstanding discovery. Again, Noble failed to respond. At the hearing for the motion, Noble delivered a “box of documents” to L.D., including incomplete responses to interrogatories. Neither the responses to the interrogatories nor requests for production were signed and no certificates of service were provided. The motion to dismiss was taken under advisement by the trial court.
L.D filed a renewed motion to dismiss Noble’s petition with prejudice alleging the discovery responses remained unverified, unsigned, and deficient in violation of the court’s earlier order. L.D. further noted the claim was now nearly nine years old and L.D. had been forced on three different occasions to file motions to obtain relief. Again, Noble failed to respond to the motion.
The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss, noting the failure of Noble to properly respond to court ordered discovery even while her claim faced dismissal with prejudice. Noble filed a motion for reconsideration arguing, among other things, that dismissal of her petition with prejudice was an excessive sanction. Noble stated such sanctions are reserved for when an "offending party exhibits repeated and protracted failure to comply with the rules of discovery." The trial court denied Noble’s motion to reconsider.
Noble appealed. The appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Noble’s complaint with prejudice. The court held trial courts have an obligation to ensure discovery rules are followed and approved the discretion to impose sanctions that are “just.” The appellate court noted Noble repeatedly failed to comply with the rules of discovery constituting a “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court.” As a result, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of Noble’s petition with prejudice.
Key Takeaways
The court’s opinion illustrates several key points for consideration by companies and their advisors alike:
-
A circuit court is vested with broad discretion in administering the rules of discovery and in determining the proper remedy—including dismissal with prejudice—for a party's non-compliance with court-ordered discovery.
-
Appellate courts will only review such decisions to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering such sanctions.
-
A “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court” by either party is sufficient to uphold a decision to dismiss a claim with prejudice.
related services
- Aerospace
- Automotive & Heavy Equipment
- Construction
- Food & Beverage
- Banking
- Healthcare
- Hospitality & Leisure
- Insurance
- Pharmaceutical & Medical Device
- Retail
- Trucking
- Railroad
- Propane
- Recreational Transportation
- Appellate
- Complex Commercial & Business Litigation
- Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation
- Construction Trial & Litigation
- Cyber Liability, Privacy & Data Breach
- Employment & Labor
- Financial Services Litigation
- Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith
- Intellectual Property
- Mediation & Arbitration
- Medical Malpractice
- Personal Injury Defense
- Premises Liability
- Product Liability
- Professional & Management Liability
- Property Rights/Rails-to-Trails
- Toxic/Mass Tort & Environmental
About Missouri Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Missouri Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Missouri law on a broad range of topics of interest to Missouri practitioners and attorneys and businesses with disputes subject to Missouri law. Learn more about the editor, David Eisenberg.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Missouri Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Missouri Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Missouri Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.