Hales v. Oldroyd
| Decision Date | 16 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 990288-CA.,990288-CA. |
| Citation | 999 P.2d 588,2000 UT Ct. App. 75 |
| Parties | Marilyn R. HALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. J. Jay OLDROYD, M.D.; and Nolan B. Money, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Dexter L. Anderson, Millard County Deputy Attorney's Office, Fillmore, for Appellant.
Curtis J. Drake and Scott C. Sandberg, Snell & Wilmer, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.
Before BENCH, and DAVIS, JJ., and GARFF, S.J.1
¶ 1 Marilyn Hales appeals the trial court's dismissal of her complaint against Dr. J. Jay Oldroyd and Dr. Nolan B. Money (the Doctors). The trial court dismissed Hales's claim without prejudice as a discovery sanction based on her numerous delays and failures to comply with discovery requirements.2 Hales asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint based on a variety of procedural and substantive grounds. We affirm.
¶ 2 Hales filed a complaint initiating this action in August of 1993. The complaint alleged counts of medical malpractice against the Doctors stemming from abdominal surgery they performed in April of 1987. In the initial complaint, Hales also named Mountain View Hospital (Mountain View) as a defendant because the operations took place at that hospital.
¶ 3 After its motion to dismiss based on lack of agent liability failed, Mountain View filed an answer and began to pursue discovery for its defense in August of 1994. Over the next several months, Mountain View served two sets of interrogatories on Hales. Hales filed for additional time to answer the first set, but even with additional time failed to properly respond. After Hales failed to completely answer Mountain View's first interrogatories and failed to respond at all to its second set of interrogatories, even after motions to compel and a court order commanding a response, Mountain View filed a motion to dismiss as a discovery sanction. The court granted Mountain View's motion in August of 1995, and dismissed Hales's complaint as to Mountain View, under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 37.3
¶ 4 Meanwhile, the Doctors were also pursuing discovery for their defense, and were also experiencing difficulty getting prompt cooperation in discovery from Hales. The Doctors had requested that Hales sign several medical release forms which would enable them to obtain her medical records from out-of-state medical providers. The releases were requested by informal letter dated February 17, first requesting a response within approximately two weeks.
¶ 5 After receiving no response, the Doctors sent follow-up letters. The final letter notified Hales that if the releases were not received by April 3, the Doctors would file a motion to compel. The Doctors filed their first motion to compel discovery on April 11, 1995, asking the court to compel production of the release forms. Although not completely clear from the record, it appears that the Doctors actually received the releases before the filing of the motion to compel. No court action was taken on this motion.
¶ 6 The Doctors filed a second motion to compel on June 30, 1995. The second motion also concerned medical release forms requested from Hales. The Doctors requested additional releases by letter dated May 5, with the responses requested by May 16. A follow-up letter was sent on May 22, but still no response from Hales was received before the motion to compel. The Doctors filed a notice to submit for decision on August 4, 1995, noting that Hales had not filed a responsive memorandum.
¶ 7 On August 29, 1995, the court granted the Doctors' motion to compel. In the ruling, the court gave Hales twenty days from the signing of the order to provide the requested releases. Hales provided the releases within twenty days of the court's ruling, thereby complying with the court order.
¶ 8 The Doctors filed another motion to compel on July 30, 1998, asking the court to compel the production of medical records allegedly altered by defendants and their attorneys. Hales had made allegations of such alteration during her deposition on July 1, 1998. The Doctors' counsel requested that Hales produce the allegedly altered documents at the deposition. Hales and her attorney refused to review the record to produce the altered documents, even though there were several binders of documents immediately available. The Doctors' counsel then discontinued the deposition, believing no further purpose would be served without the documents, and pursued a court order. Hales again did not file a response to the motion to compel the production of the allegedly altered documents.
¶ 9 The court held a hearing on several outstanding motions on August 26, 1998. At the hearing, the court granted the Doctors' motion to compel the documents. The court ordered Hales to produce "all documents which she contends have been altered in any manner by defendants, defendants' counsel, or any agent or employee of defendants' insurance company" within thirty days. Hales was further required to submit to a deposition by November 13. Additionally, sanctions were assessed against Hales for the cost of the motion to compel, including attorney fees. The court entered an order reflecting its ruling on September 14, 1998.
¶ 10 Also on September 14, the Doctors filed another motion to compel regarding additional medical release forms. The Doctors had requested the release forms by letter dated August 20, 1998. The letter specified no due date, but requested the forms as soon as possible. In response, by a letter dated August 25, Hales's attorney notified the Doctors that Hales was hospitalized out of state and unavailable to sign the forms immediately.
¶ 11 In their motion to compel, the Doctors stated that Hales refused to sign the forms. However, it did not address in any way the fact that Hales was out of the area. Furthermore, the motion was filed less than thirty days after the request for the releases was made, despite the thirty day time frame for responses permitted in discovery rules. On September 23, Hales filed an objection to the motion to compel, explaining not only that some of the records had been produced, but also that some of the release forms were not provided as alleged by the Doctors. The objection did not, however, raise any issue regarding the time frame of the motion to compel, or the informality of the request. Hales provided the medical releases, although it is not clear when she did so. The court took no action on this motion to compel, and it remained pending when the court dismissed Hales's complaint.
¶ 12 On November 25, 1998, the Doctors filed a motion for sanctions, asking the court to dismiss Hales's complaint under Rule 37 due to her failure to respond to discovery. Hales had not responded in any way to the court order to produce the allegedly altered documents. Hales did not file a response to the motion, so the Doctors filed a notice to submit for decision on December 8, 1998.
¶ 13 On December 10, 1998, the court signed a ruling granting the Doctors' motion for sanctions and dismissing Hales's complaint without prejudice "because of [Hales's] continued failure to comply with discovery requests." Hales's motion to set aside the default was denied. A final order reflecting the court's reasoning and ruling was entered on March 17, 1999.
¶ 14 In its order, the trial court noted "that plaintiff's counsel has established a consistent pattern and practice of not complying with discovery requests and other dilatory behavior." The court outlined the pattern, including failures to comply with discovery from both Mountain View, which had already been dismissed as a defendant, and from the Doctors. The court stated incorrectly that the motion to compel dated September 14, 1998 had been granted, but did properly note its filing. Finally, the court concluded As a result, the court determined that dismissal was an appropriate sanction "based upon the willful behavior and the repeated practice of failure to comply with discovery requests." Hales appeals this order.
¶ 15 At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Hales's complaint as a discovery sanction. Discovery sanctions, including dismissal of a complaint or entry of default judgment, are permitted under Rule 37 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.4 Trial courts have broad discretion in determining discovery sanctions "`[b]ecause trial courts must deal first hand with the parties and the discovery process.'" Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Osguthorpe, 892 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah 1995) (citation omitted). Thus, appellate courts will interfere with the exercise of such discretion only when "`"abuse of that discretion [is] clearly shown."'" Morton v. Continental Baking Co., 938 P.2d 271, 274 (Utah 1997) (alteration and emphasis in original; citations omitted).
¶ 16 As an initial matter, before imposing sanctions under Rule 37, "the court must find on the part of the noncomplying party willfulness, bad faith, or fault, or persistent dilatory tactics frustrating the judicial process." Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Once the court makes this threshold finding, "`[t]he choice of an appropriate discovery sanction is primarily the responsibility of the trial judge.'" Id. (quoting First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Schamanek, 684 P.2d 1257, 1266 (Utah 1984)). We will find an abuse of discretion in a trial court's choice of sanction only when "there is either `an erroneous conclusion of law or . . . no evidentiary basis for the trial court's ruling.'" Id. (alteration in original; citation omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glacier Land Co. v. Claudia Klawe & Assoc.
...sanctions 'because trial courts must deal first hand with the parties and the discovery process.'" Hales v. Oldroyd, 2000 UT App 75, ¶ 15, 999 P.2d 588 (quoting Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Osguthorpe, 892 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah 1995)). One of the primary goals of the discovery process is "to remove e......
-
Allen v. Ciokewicz
...acted willfully, rule 37 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure allows it to impose sanctions. See Hales v. Oldroyd, 2000 UT App 75, ¶ 16, 999 P.2d 588. “Once the court makes this threshold finding, the choice of an appropriate discovery sanction is primarily the responsibility of the trial j......
-
Sfr, Inc. v. Comtrol, Inc.
...to select among "the full range of options" in deciding which sanction to apply to the violator. Hales v. Oldroyd, 2000 UT App 75, ¶ 18, 999 P.2d 588. ¶ 14 Broadly speaking, "[t]o show the trial court abused its discretion in choosing which sanction to impose, [Comtrol] must show either tha......
-
Fu v. Rhodes
...“did nothing to show the court that he was interested in diligently prosecuting his case”); Hales v. Oldroyd, 2000 UT App 75, ¶¶ 26, 28, 999 P.2d 588 (affirming the dismissal of a complaint as a discovery sanction where the plaintiff “continually delayed in responding to discovery requests”......