James v. Gray, A97A2322
| Decision Date | 27 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A97A2322,A97A2322 |
| Citation | 229 Ga.App. 39,494 S.E.2d 198 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 3919 JAMES v. GRAY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alvin L. Kendall, Atlanta, for appellant.
Sullivan, Hall, Booth & Smith, Rush S. Smith, Jr., Atlanta, Groover & Childs, Frank H. Childs, Jr., Macon, for appellee.
Greta James sued Wilson Gray, M.D., for obstetrical malpractice resulting in the death of her newborn son. She appeals the trial court's dismissal of her complaint as a sanction for her failure to attend scheduled depositions. We affirm.
The record shows that on November 22, 1993, Gray's defense counsel served James's attorney, Carey, with notice that Gray would depose James on December 8, 1993. On December 7, Carey told defense counsel that James likely would not appear for the deposition and was seeking another lawyer. The next day, Carey confirmed his client would not show. He gave no excuse for her failure to do so. On December 8, defense counsel again sent Carey notice that James would be deposed on January 18, 1994. Carey soon filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which was granted after attorneys Fierman and Warren entered appearances for James on December 23, 1993.
Fierman told Gray's counsel that the scheduled deposition would take place despite the change in counsel. On the morning of January 18, Fierman called Gray's attorney to confirm the deposition at Fierman's office and gave Gray's attorney directions to the office; however, an hour later Fierman called back and said his client would not appear for the deposition, adding that he was considering whether he would continue to represent her. On January 21, 1994, Fierman and Warren requested leave to withdraw from the case on grounds that James had discharged them as counsel. Ten days later, Gray filed a motion to dismiss James's complaint pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37(d) as a sanction for her failure to attend the noticed depositions. Although James's current counsel, Kendall, entered his appearance on her behalf in February 1994, James filed no response to the motion for sanctions until April 16, 1997, a few days after Gray's attorneys scheduled a hearing on the motion. 1
James did not appear at the hearing to explain her failure to appear. Her attorneys offered the explanation that she missed the second scheduled deposition because she had not agreed to be represented by Fierman, but they gave no excuse for her failure to attend the first noticed deposition. The trial court found James's refusal to attend the depositions "willful, conscious and intentional" and her response to the sanctions motion inadequate.
OCGA § 9-11-37(d) empowers the trial court to dismiss the complaint of a plaintiff who has refused to attend a properly-noticed deposition. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McConnell v. Wright, A06A0511.
...of the plaintiff's wilfulness and repeated abuse of the discovery process. The facts also do not approach those of James v. Gray, 229 Ga. App. 39, 40, 494 S.E.2d 198 (1997), in which we affirmed the dismissal of a complaint based in part on evidence that, after plaintiff's counsel called op......
-
Dyer v. SPECTRUM ENGINEERING, INC.
...237 Ga.App. 36, 37(1), 514 S.E.2d 699 (1999). 4. Cook v. Lassiter, 159 Ga.App. 24, 25, 282 S.E.2d 680 (1981); see James v. Gray, 229 Ga. App. 39, 40-41, 494 S.E.2d 198 (1997); cf. OCGA § 5. Stolle v. State Farm &c. Ins. Co., 206 Ga.App. 235, 237(3), 424 S.E.2d 807 (1992) (whole court). 6. S......
-
Pascal v. Prescod
...438(1), 641 S.E.2d 562 (2007); King v. Bd. of Regents etc., of Ga., 238 Ga.App. 4, 5-6 (3), 516 S.E.2d 581 (1999); James v. Gray, 229 Ga.App. 39, 494 S.E.2d 198 (1997); Smith v. Adamson, 226 Ga.App. 698, 701(6), 487 S.E.2d 386 (1997). "A trial court has broad discretion to control discovery......
- Standard Management Co. v. Scott
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...equipment at the county correctional institute. Id. 292. Id. (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1985)). 293. Id. at 585, 494 S.E.2d at 198. "Accordingly, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to [defendants] on [plaintiff's] claims under the Eighth Amendment a......