Lee v. Smith
Decision Date | 10 February 2020 |
Docket Number | S18G1549 |
Citation | 307 Ga. 815,838 S.E.2d 870 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | LEE v. SMITH. |
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Bradley S. Wolff, David M. Atkinson, for appellant.
Willis McKenzie, Matthew C. Alford, Nathan D. Cronic, Sr., for appellee.
In this personal injury case, the trial court excluded the testimony of an expert defense witness, reasoning that the expert had "not [been] properly identified within the parameters of the scheduling order." The Court of Appeals affirmed, and we granted the defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari to answer the following two questions: (1) May a trial court exclude an expert witness solely because the witness was identified after the deadline set in a scheduling, discovery, and/or case management order? and (2) If not, what factors should a trial court consider when exercising its discretion whether to exclude an expert witness who was identified after the deadline set in a scheduling, discovery, and/or case management order?
The parties concede, and this Court agrees, that the answer to the first question is "no." With respect to the second question, we conclude that, when a trial court exercises its discretion in a civil case to determine whether to exclude a late-identified witness, it should consider: (1) the explanation for the failure to disclose the witness, (2) the importance of the testimony, (3) the prejudice to the opposing party if the witness is allowed to testify, and (4) whether a less harsh remedy than the exclusion of the witness would be sufficient to ameliorate the prejudice and vindicate the trial court's authority. Based on these answers, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part and remand this case with direction that the Court of Appeals vacate the trial court's ruling and remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration.
1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The record shows that the plaintiff, David A. Smith II, was a world-ranked collegiate high jumper who suffered several injuries, including a fractured left hip, in a September 2012 car collision. The defendant, Donggue Lee, acknowledged fault for the collision. Smith filed suit against Lee in September 2014; at that time Smith requested in his complaint damages for "pain and suffering," "medical expenses," and "further relief as [the trial court] may deem just and proper," but he made no specific claim for future lost wages.
After answering the complaint, Lee served written discovery on Smith, asking him to identify any expert witnesses who would testify at trial and requesting an itemization of all special damages he was claiming as a result of the accident, including future lost earnings. On July 1, 2015, Smith responded in relevant part1 to Lee's interrogatories on these matters as follows:
In Smith's responses to Lee's request for production of documents, Smith stated the following:
Though Smith was able to return to competition and compete in the 2016 Olympics, he underwent surgery in January 2017 to remove a bone chip from his hip joint that, he alleges, was caused by the 2012 collision. Two months after his surgery, Smith supplemented his response to Interrogatory Number 16 regarding the identification of expert witnesses, stating:
[Smith] further intends to call various damages witnesses at trial regarding the impact that [Smith's] injuries will have upon [his] future in various aspects of his personal life and athletic career, including treating physicians and [Smith's] agent, Leo Finkley.[2 ] To the extent necessary, and in the event the parties cannot stipulate to an agreed upon rate for reduction of future lost earnings to present cash value, [Smith] intends to call to trial to testify for that limited purpose a qualified economist.
Less than a week later, on April 5, 2017, the trial court entered a consent scheduling order that required identification of all witnesses by May 12, 2017, and set August 7 as the trial date. On the last day for identifying witnesses, Smith again supplemented his discovery responses. Relevant here is his supplementation to Interrogatory 16, which stated:
[Smith] further intends to call various damages witnesses at trial regarding the impact that [Smith's] injuries will have upon [his] future in various aspects of his personal life and athletic career, including ... [Smith's] agent, Lamont Dagan.
And, Smith supplemented his response to Interrogatory Number 35, which stated:
In addition to past, current and future lost earnings, [Smith] has further suffered special and/or general damages in the form of, inter alia, diminished earning capacity, diminished ability to work, labor or earn wages. Since the date of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit, [Smith's] occupation changed upon graduation from Auburn University in May 2016 from collegiate high jumper to professional high jumper. As a result of the injuries suffered during the collision and the reasonable and necessary medical treatment resulting therefrom (including, inter alia, surgery in January 2017), [Smith] has lost earnings (including, inter alia, contract, sponsorship, incentive, appearance and various other forms of earnings associated with his profession) in an amount to be more fully shown at trial.
Lee did not supplement his answers to Interrogatory 21 or the Requests for Production. Lee deposed Smith's newly identified sports agent, Lamont Dagen, on June 20. A week later, Lee sent an e-mail to Smith identifying an expert he planned to call as a rebuttal witness regarding Smith's newly asserted claim for future lost earnings.
At a July pretrial hearing, Smith argued that Lee's rebuttal expert...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J.P. Carey Enters., Inc. v. Cuentas, Inc.
...With regard to excluding an expert witness for failure to timely disclose that expert, our Supreme Court has recently held, in Lee v. Smith ,59 that when a "trial court defaults to the most extreme sanction available based solely upon a party's failure to meet a deadline in a scheduling ord......
-
Doe v. Roe
...App. 230, 234 (1), 767 S.E.2d 775 (2014) (citations and punctuation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds in Lee v. Smith , 307 Ga. 815, 823 (2), 838 S.E.2d 870 (2020). Although Doe acknowledges that he consented to sexual intercourse with Roe, he claims that she is liable for an int......
-
Forsyth Cnty. v. Mommies Props. LLC
...Ga. App. 230, 240 (4), 767 S.E.2d 775 (2014) (citation and punctuation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lee v. Smith , 307 Ga. 815, 822-823 (2), 838 S.E.2d 870 (2020).25 The Georgia Mountains Regional Commission is the government body tasked with implementing the MRPA in Forsyth Coun......
-
Grier v. State
...counsel objected to the lack of proper notice, Appellant has not satisfied his burden in showing clear error. Cf. Lee v. Smith , 307 Ga. 815, 821-822 (2), 838 S.E.2d 870 (2020) (holding that trial court abused its discretion by excluding a witness solely due to late identification). Accordi......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure
...the Supreme Court of Georgia on May 28, 2020. That petition was still pending at the time this Article was submitted for publishing.54. 307 Ga. 815, 838 S.E.2d 870 (2020).55. Id. at 822-23, 838 S.E.2d at 876.56. Id. at 823-24, 838 S.E.2d at 877.57. Id. at 823, 838 S.E.2d at 877.58. Id. at 8......
-
Evidence
...S.E.2d at 540.14. Id. at 79, 839 S.E.2d at 536-40.15. Id. (quoting Pappas v. Holloway, 114 Wash.2d 198, 208, 787 P.2d 30, 36 (1990)).16. 307 Ga. 815, 838 S.E.2d 870 (2020).17. 334 Ga. App. 791, 780 S.E.2d 442 (2015).18. In Moore, following the deadline for expert disclosure pursuant to a co......