City of Jackson v. Rhaly
| Citation | 95 So.3d 602 |
| Decision Date | 06 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009–CT–00350–SCT.,2009–CT–00350–SCT. |
| Parties | CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. Myrt Naylor RHALY, and Sons, Henry Crawford Rhaly, Jr., John Thomas Rhaly, William Dewitt Rhaly, Bill Alan Wilson, and Wife, Linda Gay Wilson, Mary Sue Creel, Hilda Louise Ferron and Amy Jo Baxter. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Claire Barker Hawkins, Pieter John Teeuwissen, attorneys for appellant.
William Joseph Kerley, attorney for appellees.
EN BANC.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
¶ 1. Property owners (collectively, “the Rhalys”) brought suit against the City of Jackson for flooding to their properties, allegedly caused by the City's failure to maintain a ditch. The Circuit Court of Hinds County struck the City's answer due to “gross indifference to its discovery obligations,” based upon its failure to produce the “Streets, Bridges, and Drainage Division of the Public Works Department Operations and Maintenance Policy Manual” (“Manual”), and entered a default judgment in favor of the Rhalys. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed. See City of Jackson v. Rhaly, 95 So.3d 657, 2011 WL 1486624 (Miss.Ct.App. April 19, 2011). As the circuit court's finding that the City exhibited “gross indifference to its discovery obligations” is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the City's failure to produce the Manual reflects a prime example of “gross indifference,” this Court affirms the circuit court and the Court of Appeals. See Amiker v. Drugs for Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942, 948 (Miss.2000) (citing White v. White, 509 So.2d 205, 207 (Miss.1987)).
¶ 2. The Rhalys owned property in Jackson, Mississippi, near Eubank's Creek—an improved drainage ditch. The flooding incidents underlying the subject cases took place on July 30, 2002, and April 6, 2003. Complaints in the subsequently consolidated cases, predicated upon claims of negligence and gross and reckless negligence, were filed on December 27, 2002, and November 1, 2004, respectively. On January 23, 2002, a complaint had been filed against the City in the circuit court, before the same circuit judge, in the case styled City of Jackson v. Internal Engine Parts Group.1See Internal Engine Parts, 903 So.2d at 62. On November 24, 2003, the circuit court entered its verdict and judgment in Internal Engine Parts, “awarding $369,480.32 in favor of Engine Parts.” 2Id. at 62. Approximately seven months later, on July 12, 2004, the City filed its “Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents and Things” and “Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories” in the present case, which included:
Request No. 2:Any standard operating procedure (SOPs) which govern the site of the subject incident.
Response No. 2:[N]one. Will supplement upon receipt of any information.
...
Interrogatory No. 20:Please describe any claims or lawsuits that have heretofore been brought against this Defendant by reason of an incident or injury at the same or similar location, or a similar type of incident at some other location for five years prior to the subject incident and at any time subsequent thereto.
Response No. 20:The City of Jackson is not aware of any lawsuits filed five years prior to the subject incident.
(Emphasis added.) On February 7, 2005, the City filed its “Supplementation of Responses to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents and Things” and “Supplementation of Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories,” which included:
Request No. 2:Any standard operating procedure (SOPs) which govern the site of the subject incident.
Response No. 2:[N]one. Will supplement upon receipt of any information.
Supplementation to Response No. 2:There was no standard operating procedure which governed water quantity control in the City of Jackson at the time of the incident. Matters were handled by exterior or interior complaint with routine inspections made before and after rain events on problem areas. Beginning November 26, 2004, the City adapted from the Operations and Maintenance Manual prepared for water quality requirements of the EPA a Storm Water Drainage Maintenance Plan for water quantity purposes. A copy is produced.
...
Interrogatory No. 20:Please describe any claims or lawsuits that have heretofore been brought against this Defendant by reason of an incident or injury at the same or similar location, or a similar type of incident at some other location for five years prior to the subject incident and at any time subsequent thereto.
Response No. 20:The City of Jackson is not aware of any lawsuits filed five years prior to the subject incident.
Supplementation to Response No. 20: The City of Jackson is not aware of any suits before or after this incident that involves the damming of the waterway by dumpsters swept into the channel by floodwaters. The Plaintiffs have served a Notice of Claim upon these Defendants relating to the flash flood of April 6, 2003.
(Emphasis added.)
¶ 3. Despite the aforementioned requests, and the facts developed at trial in Internal Engine Parts, the City never produced or referenced the Manual and never supplemented its interrogatory responses to refer to Internal Engine Parts.3 The Rhalys only fortuitously discovered the Manual six days before trial, on March 31, 2008, when the paralegal for the Rhalys' counsel found it as a pleading attachment while reviewing the record in Internal Engine Parts.
¶ 4. The stated purpose of the Manual was to:
provide the Streets, Bridges and Drainage Division of the Public Works Department of the City of Jackson with operation and maintenance policies for the management of the City's storm water drainage system. This manual provides technical guidance for the structural control of storm water runoff.... The Manual will specify responsibilities and procedures for the inspection and maintenance of storm water systems that are within the City of Jackson's jurisdiction. ... The Manual will designate which agency is responsible for the maintenance and inspection for the entire drainage system, and is intended to be used to assist in educating the Public Works staff members who are specifically responsible for prevention, treatment, and control of storm water runoff.
(Emphasis added.) The trial transcript from Internal Engine Parts, introduced as an exhibit by the Rhalys, reflects that the City's Rule 30(b)(6) representative testified that the Manual “is what we abide by through our maintenance division[,]” and that it was in effect on August 9, 2001, nearly one year before the first incident in the present case (July 30, 2002). SeeMiss. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Thus, the Rhalys procured this critical document, solely by their own effort, more than five years after the initial complaint was filed and only six days before trial.4
¶ 5. On April 2, 2008, the Rhalys filed a “Combined Motion for Sanctions Against the Defendant City of Jackson.” The Rhalys claimed in their motion that the City's “false representations were made by outright misrepresentations of fact in sworn interrogatories; and/or deliberate concealment of material evidence.” The Rhalys sought “an Order striking the Answer of each Defendant, and entering Default Judgment in favor of the [Rhalys] on all their claims.”
¶ 6. On May 15, 2008, after receiving “extensiv[e]” argument “on the issue of sanctions[,]” the circuit court entered its seven-page “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The circuit court stated that “[i]t is undisputed that this same Manual was used in and directly involved in another case involving the City of Jackson styled, [Internal Engine Parts ], during much of the same time as the subject litigation.” 5 According to the circuit court, this “significant document” was requested by the Rhalys; “was within the knowledge of the City, its legal department, and its Drainage Division” by virtue of the “analogous flooding incident” in Internal Engine Parts; and “should have been produced.” Regarding the interrogatories, the circuit court found that the Rhalys “asked the proper questions and the City did not give the proper responses.” As the result of the City's breach of its discovery duties, the circuit court determined that the Rhalys were impaired in “develop[ing] and pursu[ing] claims of negligence by the City and wrongful acts by the City in the maintenance of the particular drainage creek involved in this litigation.” Because of the “large amount of time and expense” incurred by the Rhalys, 6 and the fact that the case was “on the eve of trial[,]” the circuit court found that the City's “ gross indifference to its discovery obligations” required a greater sanction than merely “giv[ing] the [Rhalys] an opportunity to reopen discovery and delay the trial.” (Emphasis added.) Based upon the “enormous and substantial prejudice” suffered by the Rhalys through “no fault” of their own, the circuit court concluded that the “proper sanction” for the City's conduct was to strike its answer and enter judgment in favor of the Rhalys, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). SeeMiss. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
¶ 7. On January 6, 2009, the circuit court entered its “Order Denying Defendant City of Jackson's Motion for Post Judgment Relief, or, in the Alternative, for Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” That order emphasized that the circuit court “has spent a considerable amount of time in considering the evidence presented at the hearing on [the Rhalys'] Motion for Sanctions[,]” and that, following such consideration, “the prior decision of this [c]ourt was and is warranted and within the sound discretion of this [c]ourt ....” (Emphasis added.)
¶ 8. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. See Rhaly, 95 So.3d at 664. Thereafter, this Court granted the City's petition for writ of certiorari. See City of Jackson v. Rhaly, 73 So.3d 1168 (Miss.2011).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newsome v. Shoemake
...Ferguson , 179 So.3d at 1064 (quoting Pierce v. Heritage Props., Inc. , 688 So.2d 1385, 1388 (Miss. 1997) (quoting City of Jackson v. Rhaly , 95 So.3d 602, 607 (Miss. 2012) )).¶ 44. The sole case upon which Marilyn Newsome relies in support of her argument is Stanley v. Scott Petroleum Corp......
- Wright v. Turan-Foley Motors, Inc., 2016–WC–01264–COA
-
Ashmore v. Miss. Auth. on Educ. Television, 2012–CA–01297–SCT.
...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 th......
- Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Hood