Daniel v. Corporate Property Investors
| Decision Date | 31 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A1635.,A98A1635. |
| Citation | 234 Ga. App. 148,505 S.E.2d 576 |
| Parties | DANIEL v. CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
C. Samuel Rael, Atlanta, for appellant.
Duncan & Mangiafico, Royce F. Morris, Atlanta, for appellee.
Plaintiff Leonard Dale Daniel appeals from the trial court's order granting the defendant Corporate Property Investors' (CPI), motion to compel discovery and to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as a sanction. We affirm.
Daniel contends: (1) that the motion to compel discovery was defective as it did not contain the certification of a good faith effort required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.4(B); (2) that the trial court failed to make the required finding of wilfulness prior to the imposition of the sanctions; and (3) that he was denied due process because he was not provided a hearing.
"Trial judges have broad discretion in controlling discovery, including imposition of sanctions, and appellate courts will not reverse a trial court's decision on such matters unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion." (Citation omitted.) Fidelity Enterprises v. Heyman & Sizemore, 206 Ga.App. 602, 603, 426 S.E.2d 177 (1992).
Daniel filed the instant action on January 3, 1997, for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an accident which occurred while he was riding an escalator at Lenox Square Mall. On January 24, 1997, CPI answered the complaint and served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Daniel. Daniel failed to respond to the discovery requests. In a letter dated May 5, 1997, CPI requested that Daniel provide responses to discovery. The record contains no indication of a response to this letter.
On July 21, 1997, CPI filed a motion to compel and for sanctions resulting from Daniel's failure to respond to discovery requests. Thereafter, CPI amended its motion for sanctions to include Daniel's failure to appear for his properly noticed deposition. Daniel failed to respond to either motion to compel. No request for a formal hearing was made by either party, and the trial court entered an order dismissing Daniel's case with prejudice on November 10, 1997.
1. In his first enumeration of error, Daniel contends that CPI failed to certify to the court that a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute was made, as required by USCR 6.4(B).1 However, we have addressed this issue previously and decided it adversely to Daniel. See Fisher v. Bd. of Commrs. of Douglas County, 200 Ga. App. 353, 354(2)(c), 408 S.E.2d 120 (1991). Therein, we determined that defense counsel's letter requesting discovery responses satisfied USCR 6.4 where the plaintiff had failed to make any response to the defendant's motion to compel. Id. We determined that USCR 6.4 "applie[d] more directly to the situation in which the parties disagree[d] over what [was] required by the discovery request or, for example, whether certain matters requested by discovery [were] privileged than to the total failure to respond to discovery." Id. Therefore, Daniel's enumeration is without merit.
2. Daniel's contention that the trial court erred in entering an order without a prior finding of wilfulness also fails. Fisher, supra at 354(2)(b), 408 S.E.2d 120.
Daniel's reliance on Gen. Motors Corp. v. Conkle, 226 Ga.App. 34, 40, 486 S.E.2d 180 (1997) is misplaced, as that case is physical precedent because only two judges supported the majority opinion and it is therefore not binding authority. The special concurrence disagreed that an explicit finding of wilfulness was required and noted that such finding could be implied from the trial court's order. Id. at 49, 486 S.E.2d 180. Additionally, the facts in Conkle, supra, are distinguishable from those in the present case. Therein, General Motors had partially complied with the trial court's discovery orders and had responded to Conkle's motion to compel discovery. In the present case, Daniel failed to make any effort to respond to discovery requests and also failed to respond to CPI's motion to compel. Under such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Six Flags Over Georgia
...funds. Trial courts have broad discretion to control discovery, including the imposition of sanctions. Daniel v. Corporate Property Investors, 234 Ga.App. 148, 505 S.E.2d 576 (1998). Absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion, a court's exercise of that broad discretion will not be rev......
-
McConnell v. Wright, A06A0511.
...omitted.) Schrembs v. Atlanta Classic Cars, 261 Ga. 182, 182-183, 402 S.E.2d 723 (1991). See also Daniel v. Corporate Property Investors, 234 Ga.App. 148, 149-150(3), 505 S.E.2d 576 (1998). "A hearing has not been required where the wilfulness of the recalcitrant party is obvious and undeni......
-
Dyer v. SPECTRUM ENGINEERING, INC.
...566-567(1), 527 S.E.2d 572 (1999); Peoples v. Yu, 184 Ga.App. 252, 253, 361 S.E.2d 244 (1987). 17. See Daniel v. Corporate Property Investors, 234 Ga.App. 148(1), 505 S.E.2d 576 (1998). ...
-
Butler v. HOUSEHOLD MORTG. SERVICES, INC., A00A0367.
...courts will not interfere with a trial court's exercise of that discretion in the absence of abuse. Daniel v. Corporate Property Investors, 234 Ga.App. 148, 505 S.E.2d 576 (1998). We have reviewed the record and find no such abuse here. The trial court did not err in granting the mortgage c......