Bartles v. Hinkle
| Decision Date | 14 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 23062,23062 |
| Citation | 196 W.Va. 381,472 S.E.2d 827 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Dennis BARTLES and Maria Bartles, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, v. Morgan A. HINKLE, William P. Hinkle, and M. Pizza, Inc., Defendants Below. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Defendant Below, Appellant. |
1. Although Rules 11, 16, and 37 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure do not formally require any particular procedure, before issuing a sanction, a court must ensure it has an adequate foundation either pursuant to the rules or by virtue of its inherent powers to exercise its authority. The Due Process Clause of Section 10 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution requires that there exist a relationship between the sanctioned party's misconduct and the matters in controversy such that the transgression threatens to interfere with the rightful decision of the case. Thus, a court must ensure any sanction imposed is fashioned to address the identified harm caused by the party's misconduct.
2. In formulating the appropriate sanction, a court shall be guided by equitable principles. Initially, the court must identify the alleged wrongful conduct and determine if it warrants a sanction. The court must explain its reasons clearly on the record if it decides a sanction is appropriate. To determine what will constitute an appropriate sanction, the court may consider the seriousness of the conduct, the impact the conduct had in the case and in the administration of justice, any mitigating circumstances, and whether the conduct was an isolated occurrence or was a pattern of wrongdoing throughout the case.
3. Syl. pt 7, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 188 W.Va. 622, 425 S.E.2d 577 (1992).
4. An attorney's fee awarded as a sanction that explicitly is authorized by Rule 37(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except in cases of abuse.
Gilbert Wilkes, III, Wilkes & Associates, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Kenneth Behrend, Behrend & Ernsberger, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Walter M. Jones, III, E. Kay Fuller, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Domino's Pizza, Inc. (Domino's), one of the defendants below and the appellant herein, appeals the February 1, 1995, order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County. 1 This order imposed a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) sanction against Domino's in favor of Dennis Bartles and Maria Bartles, the plaintiffs below and appellees herein. The trial court ordered the sanction after finding the defendant did not comply with discovery orders during the underlying case. On appeal, Domino's asserts the trial court abused its discretion and acted beyond its jurisdiction in imposing the sanction. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court.
The underlying action arose from an automobile accident on May 20, 1988, between Morgan A. Hinkle, an employee of M. Pizza, Inc., a Domino's franchisee, and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued Morgan Hinkle; his father, William P. Hinkle; M. Pizza, Inc.; and Domino's, for personal injuries. The plaintiffs sought both compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court bifurcated the punitive damage issue of the trial and directed a verdict of liability against the defendant Morgan Hinkle. At the close of the trial, the jury found no liability against M. Pizza, Inc., or Domino's and returned no award on the contested damage issue.
In its February 1, 1995, order, the trial court found that prior to trial the plaintiffs filed three motions requesting the production of documents. According to a "TIME LINE" attached to Domino's brief, Domino's moved for a protective order on February 27, 1992. Domino's asserts it sought a protective order because the plaintiffs wanted certain documents, including internal writings and publications, many of which Domino's believed contained trade secrets. Domino's also insisted the plaintiffs sign a Confidentiality Agreement before Domino's turned over the requested documents.
It is apparent the Confidentiality Agreement became a source of contention between the parties. Domino's claims counsel for the plaintiffs stated in a telephonic hearing held on March 13, 1992, he had " 'no problem with the Confidentiality Order.' " Domino's then asked the trial court to enter the order so the documents could be produced. The trial court refused this request stating it would rather the parties appear in person to enter the order. Domino's contends it drafted an order on March 18, 1992, and it was clear to the parties the documents would not be produced until after the Confidentiality Agreement was executed. The plaintiffs state that On June 9, 1992, a pretrial hearing was held. At that hearing, Domino's motion for a protective order was discussed and, in part, was granted. However, Domino's states it insisted the Confidentiality Agreement be signed before the documents would be released. Domino's maintains the plaintiffs did not object to its version of the Confidentiality Agreement until June 10, 1992, when the parties met following the pretrial conference. It appears from the plaintiffs' brief that some documents were disclosed on June 9, 1992, and the plaintiffs discovered significant portions of those documents were redacted or blacked out of view. Therefore, on June 10, 1992, the plaintiffs claim they presented a "Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents and Sanction for Domino's wilful failure to comply with the [trial court's] Orders regarding the Production of Documents." The plaintiffs assert that, after hearing their motion, the trial court found Domino's was not in compliance and ordered and directed Domino's to immediately comply with the trial court's previous orders concerning discovery of documents. Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, a pretrial status conference was held on June 19, 1992, and, for a third time, the trial court ordered Domino's to produce the requested documents.
[196 W.Va. 386] on March 13, 1992, the trial court ordered Domino's to produce the documents.
The version of the Confidentiality Agreement drafted by Domino's and at issue between the parties contained a provision stating the plaintiffs and their counsel could be subject to criminal sanctions if the order was violated. The plaintiffs sought to strike that provision. The plaintiffs state the trial judge was not from Berkeley County, where the trial was being held, and only would hold hearings from time to time when he traveled to the area. Thus, the plaintiffs claim the first opportunity they had to discuss the criminal sanctions provision with the trial judge was on June 22, 1992, the first day of trial. 2 Ultimately, the provision was removed and the Confidentiality Agreement was executed on June 22, 1992. The plaintiffs state Domino's then provided them with 187 pages of documents, however, substantial portions of those pages were redacted.
The plaintiffs allege Domino's violated the trial court's order because it only was permitted to black out trade secrets which did not deal with its delivery policy and procedure and/or collisions. Therefore, on the second day of trial, the plaintiffs moved for sanctions. The plaintiffs assert that once again the trial court ordered Domino's to provide the documents, and the trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 25, 1992 (the fourth morning of trial), to discuss discovery issues. The plaintiffs state that on June 24, 25, and 27 Domino's produced about two thousand pages of documents in compliance with the previous orders. In their brief, the plaintiffs allege Domino's is in possession of other documents which should have been produced.
Domino's maintains the trial court's orders continually were expanded as time passed. Domino's insists it immediately complied with each expansion of the orders. At the June 9, 1992, pretrial hearing, the plaintiffs' request for Domino's "Operating Manual" was discussed. Domino's informed the trial court the manual contained information beyond the delivery policy at issue, and the trial court informed Domino's it could black out everything not pertaining to its thirty-minute delivery policy. After the Confidentiality Agreement was signed, Domino's provided the plaintiffs a redacted version of the manual.
Thereafter, on June 23, 1992, Domino's states the trial court enlarged its order to include the entire manual without regard to the fact the trial court previously held parts of the manual were not to be produced because of trade secrets. Plaintiffs told the trial court Domino's improperly excluded sections entitled "delivery; pre-shift setup; delivery; fast, free delivery; delivery time; delivery costs; friendliness and Domino's products/services." However, Domino's argues those sections were in the 1985 manual Another issue discussed at the June 9, 1992, hearing was the plaintiffs' request for all writings over the past ten years dealing with pizza delivery automobile accident lawsuits naming Domino's as a defendant. The trial court ordered Domino's to run a computerized legal search to produce a list of cases. Domino's interpreted the request as a Westlaw search and explained to the trial court the search only would generate appellate decisions. Domino's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clark
...court's sanction authority be a reasonable response to the problems and needs that provoked its use. See Bartles v. Hinkle, 196 W.Va. 381, 390, 472 S.E.2d 827, 836 (1996) (“In formulating the appropriate sanction, a court shall be guided by equitable principles.”). In other words, a court's......
-
State v. Salmons
...present issue, we are not bound to hear it. "Courts are never bound by the acts or agreements of the parties." Bartles v. Hinkle, 196 W.Va. 381, 388, 472 S.E.2d 827, 834 (1996). We have held that "[a]s a general rule, proceedings of trial courts are presumed to be regular, unless the contra......
-
Tabb v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n
...the contemplation of WVA.Code, 58-5-1 [1926], and the final order has been appealed properly to this Court." Citing Bartles v. Hinkle, 196 W.Va. at 388, 472 S.E.2d at 834.Likewise, the Court is mindful of the ruling in Syllabus Point 2 of Bartles v. Hinkle, supra, that states: "In formulati......
-
Gomez v. Kanawha Cnty. Comm'n
...cert. denied sub nom. Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Justice , 474 U.S. 936, 106 S.Ct. 299, 88 L.Ed.2d 277 (1985).71 Bartles v. Hinkle , 196 W.Va. 381, 390, 472 S.E.2d 827, 836 (1996) (citation omitted).72 Syllabus Point 6, Cattrell Companies, Inc. v. Carlton, Inc ., 217 W.Va. 1, 614 S.E.2d 1 (2......