Johnson v. Martin, 51250
| Decision Date | 07 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 51250,51250,1 |
| Citation | 223 S.E.2d 465,137 Ga.App. 312 |
| Parties | Linda K. JOHNSON v. M. S. MARTIN et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
L. B. Kent, Columbus, for appellant.
Denny C. Galis, Erwin, Epting, Gibson & McLeod, Gary B. Blasingame, Athens, for appellees.
In this personal injury suit, one of the defendants, Martin, on April 9, 1974 served plaintiff by mail with 49 interrogatories. On April 11, 1974, this defendant also personally served on plaintiff's counsel a reqquest for production of documents for inspection and copying under CPA § 34 (Code Ann. § 81A-134) and a request that plaintiff deliver to this defendant reports of any and every physical or mental examination previously or thereafter made of plaintiff under CPA § 35(b)(2) (Code Ann. § 81A-135(b)(2)). On May 15, 1974 defendant Martin, reciting that plaintiff had not answered the interrogatories nor responded to the requests for production of documents and reports of physical and mental condition, moved for an order compelling plaintiff to: (1) Answer his interrogatories; (2) to permit the inspection of the documents and (3) to require compliance with the request for the report of physician's examination. On the same day, plaintiff served the defendant by mail a motion to quash the request for production of documents and for medical reports which were also filed with the court on May 15th. It appears from the record that answers to the interrogatories were mailed to defendant's attorney on May 15, 1974. On May 23, 1974, defendant Martin filed another motion acknowledging receipt of the answers to interrogatories on May 20, 1974 but contended that some but not all of plaintiff's answers were evasive and incomplete, and in each specific instance of evasiveness defendant moved for an order compelling plaintiff to answer the specific interrogatories and to impose 'sanctions' for the failure to answer. The other defendant, Ferguson, joined the later motion. The court entered an order on June 4, 1974 finding that the plaintiff's answers to the interrogatories propounded by 'defendants' were evasive and incomplete within the meaning of CPA § 37(a)(2) and (3) (Code Ann. § 81A-137(a)(2)(3)); that plaintiff failed to make a timely response to defendant Martin's request for production of documents as required by § 34(b) of the Civil Practice Act (Code Ann. § 81A-134(b)). The court granted a judgment for the defendants and against plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $300 as the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with these motions, citing as authority CPA § 37(a)(4) (Code Ann. § 81A-137(a)(4)), and pursuant to CPA § 37(d) (Code Ann. § 81A-137(d)) dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The order made no reference to the request for physical examination. Held:
1. CPA § 37(d) (Code Ann. § 81A-137(d)) provides that where a party fails to serve answers or objections to interrogatories or fails to serve a written response to a request for inspection of documents, the court in which the action is pending 'on motion' may impose the sanction of dismissal of the action. The plaintiff had not served his answers nor a response to the request for inspection at the time the first motion was filed and were overdue as more than 30 days had elapsed since the interrogatories and the request for inspection were served. Thus plaintiff had totally failed to answer the set of interrogatories and had not responded to the request for inspection as of that date. However, defendant Martin in his first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyer v. SPECTRUM ENGINEERING, INC.
...as mere forms of Steven Dyer. No service was effected on either, nor was judgment entered against either. 2. Johnson v. Martin, 137 Ga.App. 312, 313(1), 223 S.E.2d 465 (1976); see McIntosh v. Moye, 154 Ga.App. 520, 268 S.E.2d 791 (1980); see generally Citibank &c. v. Hill, 161 Ga.App. 186, ......
-
West v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., A97A1279
...] merely because of a failure of the plaintiff to comply with the other co-defendant's discovery actions," Johnson v. Martin, 137 Ga.App. 312, 314, 223 S.E.2d 465 (1976), the case against Monster Motors, Inc. is still pending. See also Washington v. South Ga. Med. Center, 226 Ga.App. 554, 5......
-
Washington v. South Georgia Medical Center
...with this statement citing Singleton v. Eastern Carriers, 192 Ga.App. 227, 228, 384 S.E.2d 202 (1989), and Johnson v. Martin, 137 Ga.App. 312, 314, 223 S.E.2d 465 (1976), as authority that the hospital could not obtain sanctions for the Washingtons' failure to attend depositions it did not ......
-
Lowry v. Credit Bureau, Inc. of Georgia, Civ. A. No. C76-1768A.
...motion was not granted in this case. Therefore the Federal Rules do not authorize such an award in this case. See, Johnson v. Martin, 137 Ga.App. 312, 223 S.E.2d 465 (1976). Additionally, there was some justification for plaintiffs' hesitance to disclose the requested 5. Accordingly, the mo......