Ashmore v. Miss. Auth. on Educ. Television, 2012–CA–01297–SCT.

Citation148 So.3d 977
Decision Date14 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. 2012–CA–01297–SCT.,2012–CA–01297–SCT.
PartiesDavid Michael ASHMORE and Debra L. Ashmore v. MISSISSIPPI AUTHORITY ON EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION d/b/a Mississippi Public Broadcasting (Sued as Separate Entities) and the State of Mississippi.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Thomas A. Waller, Barry W. Gilmer, Jackson, attorneys for appellants.

Carson H. Thurman, Jeffery P. Reynolds, attorneys for appellees.

EN BANC.

Opinion

RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. In this personal-injury case, the trial court dismissed the Ashmores' claims with prejudice for willful discovery violations. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. David Ashmore and his wife Debra Ashmore sued for injuries they alleged resulted from a motor-vehicle accident with a vehicle driven by an employee of the Mississippi Authority on Educational Television. David sought damages for personal injuries that he allegedly suffered to his right and left knees, back, neck, and upper arms. Debra sought damages for loss of David's services, companionship, and consortium; rendering of nursing care and services to David; emotional distress; and loss of enjoyment of life.

¶ 3. After the Ashmores filed their complaint, the parties engaged in discovery.1 Two years after the Ashmores filed suit, the Mississippi Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss as a Sanction for the Plaintiffs' Repeated False Sworn Testimony. In the motion, the Mississippi Defendants argued before the trial court that the Ashmores provided a “pattern of false testimony” that “str[uck] to the core of the material issues in this lawsuit” regarding: (1) David's medical history—including knee surgeries, a back injury, and a left-leg injury; (2) the bases of David's disability; and (3) whether Debra sought similar “nursing care and services” damages in a separate nursing-home-negligence suit involving her father. In response, the Ashmores argued that any inconsistencies between David's medical history and the interrogatory responses were resolved by the Ashmores' deposition testimony.

¶ 4. A hearing for the motion was held on June 8, 2012. Attorneys for both sides presented argument at the hearing, without affidavits or testimony from the Ashmores. The Mississippi Defendants submitted that David's interrogatory responses omitted material details of David's medical history. Specifically, the Mississippi Defendants pointed out that David had failed to disclose a previous back injury, previous surgeries to his right and left knees, and an injury to David's left leg that occurred after the motor-vehicle accident. The Mississippi Defendants submitted the following interrogatories and responses to the trial court:

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state whether you sustained a personal injury, had any accidents, or suffered from any serious illness, diseases, or mental health disorders prior or subsequent to the incident in question.

(Emphasis added.) David responded to the interrogatory three times.2 The first two responses listed no previous or subsequent injuries to the areas of the body to which David claimed injuries in the present case; and the second supplemental response stated that David had heart surgery and kidney stone

surgery prior to the accident, but made no mention of any previous back or leg injuries or subsequent leg injuries. During David's deposition, the Mississippi Defendants questioned David about each of these items. David admitted to previous back injuries, having surgery on his right knee, and injuring his left leg approximately one month after the accident. But David consistently denied having surgery on his left knee prior to the accident.

¶ 5. The Mississippi Defendants also submitted that the Ashmores provided false deposition testimony regarding the basis of David's disability. David and Debra both stated in their depositions that David's disability was solely based on injuries resulting from the motor-vehicle accident. But during the discovery phase, David filed for Social Security disability. The Social Security application asked what illnesses, injuries, and/or conditions limited David's ability to work. David replied that a number of conditions, including heart problems, diabetes

, hypertension, and gout, limited his ability to work, inter alia. The Social Security Administration found that David was disabled; his explanation of determination stated [y]ou state you are disabled and unable to work because of multiple [sic] vehicle injuries, heart, diabetes, hypertension, gout.”

¶ 6. Finally, the Mississippi Defendants argued that Debra failed to disclose that she was seeking similar damages in an unrelated nursing-home-negligence case involving her father. The Mississippi Defendants submitted that Debra's September 26, 2011, interrogatory response in the nursing-home-negligence case failed to disclose that Debra was seeking damages for mental and emotional distress in the present case.3 In addition to seeking damages for nursing services rendered to David and her father, Debra sought damages for mental and emotional distress in both cases. Yet, in her deposition in the case sub judice, the Mississippi Defendants asked Debra if she was seeking damages for her nursing services in the nursing-home-negligence case. Debra stated that she was not.

¶ 7. In addition to presenting the evidence discussed supra, the Mississippi Defendants submitted a medical report revealing that David had left-knee surgery prior to the accident. At the hearing, Ashmore's attorney, inter alia, admitted that David had surgery on both knees,4 prompting the court to inquire “how not disclosing ... two knee surgeries, regardless of what caused them, is not hiding the ball.”

¶ 8. On July 10, 2012, the trial court, citing Pierce v. Heritage Properties, Inc.5 and Scoggins v. Ellzey Beverages,6 entered an order granting the Mississippi Defendants' motion, finding that the Ashmores' deposition testimony contained “wilful misrepresentations,” and further finding that such misrepresentations represented a “deliberate attempt to subvert the judicial process.” The Ashmores now appeal, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Mississippi Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9. Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in discovery matters, and this Court will not overturn a trial court's decision unless there is an abuse of discretion:

The decision to impose sanctions for discovery abuse is vested in the trial court's discretion. The provisions for imposing sanctions are designed to give the court great latitude. The power to dismiss is inherent in any court of law or equity, being a means necessary for orderly expedition of justice and the court's control of its own docket. Nevertheless, the trial court should dismiss a cause of action for failure to comply with discovery only under the most extreme circumstances.
Such dismissals by the trial court are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. When this Court reviews a decision that is within the trial court's discretion, it first asks if the court below applied the correct legal standard. If the trial court applied the right standard, then this Court considers whether the decision was one of several reasonable ones which could have been made.

Pierce, 688 So.2d at 1388 (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS

¶ 10. This Court empowered trial courts with the discretionary authority to sanction, including the authority to dismiss an action, inter alia. M.R.C.P. 37. In Pierce, we applied the following considerations for determining whether a trial court abused its discretion under Rule 37 by dismissing with prejudice:

First, dismissal is authorized only when the failure to comply with the court's order results from wilfulness or bad faith, and not from the inability to comply. Dismissal is proper only in situation [sic] where the deterrent value of Rule 37 cannot be substantially achieved by the use of less drastic sanctions. Another consideration is whether the other party's preparation for trial was substantially prejudiced. Finally, dismissal may be inappropriate when neglect is plainly attributable to an attorney rather than a blameless client, or when a party's simple negligence is grounded in confusion or sincere misunderstanding of the court's orders.

Id. at 1389 (quoting Batson v. Neal Spelce Assocs., Inc., 765 F.2d 511, 514 (5th Cir.1985) ). This Court has affirmed the trial court's discretionary authority to dismiss given similar egregious conduct by a party, as in this case. Beck v. Sapet, 937 So.2d 945, 946 (Miss.2006) ; Allen v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 934 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Miss.2006) ; Scoggins v. Ellzey Beverages, Inc., 743 So.2d 990, 997 (Miss.1999) ; Pierce, 688 So.2d 1385. The Court of Appeals followed our rulings in Conklin v. Boyd Gaming Corp., 75 So.3d 589, 595 (Miss.Ct.App.2011), by affirming dismissal as a sanction due to the trial court's finding that the plaintiff engaged in a repeated course of conduct of providing false answers and failing to disclose relevant information.

¶ 11. In short, if the trial court applies the “correct legal standard,” we must affirm the decision, regardless of what any one of us individually might have ruled had we been the judge, unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that the court below committed clear error.” See City of Jackson v. Rhaly, 95 So.3d 602, 607 (Miss.2012) (citations omitted). Although reasonable minds might differ as to the disposition, there is no support in the record that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal standard in the case sub judice, for indeed, the trial judge cited our decisions in Pierce and Scoggins as authority, dispelling any notion of applying an incorrect standard. The trial judge relied upon the standard as announced by this Court. Abuse of discretion is the most deferential standard of review appellate courts employ. See Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So.2d 1012,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Batiste v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • September 24, 2020
    ...or are manifestly wrong. Will Realty LLC v. Isaacs, 296 So. 3d 80, 81 (Miss. 2020) (citing Ashmore v. Miss. Auth. on Educ. Television, 148 So. 3d 977, 981 (Miss. 2014)). Our precedent is quite clear that when failure to recuse is harmless error, a trial court does not abuse its discretion b......
  • Newsome v. Shoemake, 2016–CA–00280–SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • September 7, 2017
    ..." Ferguson v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. , 179 So.3d 1060, 1064 (Miss. 2015) (quoting Ashmore v. Miss. Auth. on Educ. Television , 148 So.3d 977, 981 (Miss. 2014) ). " '[I]f the trial court applies the "correct legal standard," we must affirm the decision, regardless of what any of us individ......
  • Overton v. State, 2013–CT–01236–SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 28, 2016
    ...“Abuse of discretion is the most deferential standard of review appellate courts employ.” Ashmore v. Miss. Auth. on Educ. Television, 148 So.3d 977, 982 (Miss.2014).¶ 38. These principles are embodied in the definition of “abuse of discretion” for appellate courts, as found in Black's Law D......
  • Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. McLain
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 30, 2015
    ...of the law, does this Court have authority to take appropriate corrective action on appeal.” Ashmore v. Miss. Auth. on Educ. Television, 148 So.3d 977, 983 (Miss.2014) (internal quotation omitted). ¶ 14. When the juror contact was first brought to the trial judge's attention, she cited Illi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Enforcement
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Guerrilla Discovery
    • April 1, 2022
    ...basis for striking pleadings or entering a default judgment as a sanction. Ashmore v. Mississippi Authority on Educational Television , 148 So.3d 977 (Mississippi, 2014). In an auto negligence personal injury lawsuit, misrepresentations by the injured motorists during the course of depositi......
  • Defending and Responding in General
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Guerrilla Discovery - 2015 Contents
    • August 5, 2015
    ...will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task 0.1 Ashmore v. Mississippi Authority on Educational Television , 148 So.3d 977 (Mississippi, 2014). In an auto negligence personal injury lawsuit, misrepresentations by the injured motorists during the course of deposition t......
  • Enforcement
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Guerrilla Discovery - 2015 Contents
    • August 5, 2015
    ...basis for striking pleadings or entering a default judgment as a sanction. Ashmore v. Mississippi Authority on Educational Television , 148 So.3d 977 (Mississippi, 2014). In an auto negligence personal injury lawsuit, misrepresentations by the injured motorists during the course of depositi......
  • Defending and responding in general
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Guerrilla Discovery
    • April 1, 2022
    ...our arsenal does not mean that you should use it in every battle. Moreover, 1 Ashmore v. Mississippi Authority on Educational Television, 148 So.3d 977 (Mississippi, 2014). In an auto negligence personal injury lawsuit, misrepresentations by the injured motorists during the course of deposi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT