Napier v. McDougal

• Citation: 601 So.2d 446
• Parties: Norma Neal NAPIER v. Michael Allen McDOUGAL. 1910084.
• Decision Date: 15 May 1992
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Page 446

601 So.2d 446

Norma Neal NAPIER v. Michael Allen McDOUGAL.

1910084.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 15, 1992.

Rehearing Denied July 10, 1992.

D. Michael Barrett and Brian C. Isphording, Birmingham, for appellant.

Robert O. Cox and Preston S. Trousdale, Jr. of Poellnitz, Cox & Jones, Florence, for appellee.

HOUSTON, Justice.

Norma Neal Napier appeals from the trial court's dismissal of her action with prejudice for failing to comply with the trial court's order to answer interrogatories within a certain time. We affirm.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

Napier sued Michael Allen McDougal as a result of injuries she allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. McDougal submitted interrogatories to Napier on April 9, 1991, but Napier failed to answer within the time prescribed by Rule 33, Ala.R.Civ.P. Consequently, on May 21, 1991, McDougal filed a Rule 37, Ala.R.Civ.P., motion to compel, which the trial court granted, ordering that Napier answer the interrogatories propounded by McDougal "not later than June 9, 1991." Thereafter, on May 28, 1991, Napier's attorney filed a motion to withdraw because of the difficulty he was having in obtaining a response from Napier to McDougal's interrogatories. By June 9, 1991, Napier still had not answered the interrogatories, nor had she given any explanation regarding her failure to do so. Subsequently, in July, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to withdraw, at which time it denied the motion; ¹ it extended the time for Napier to answer the interrogatories until August 1, 1991; and it warned Napier that if she failed to comply it would "entertain a motion by [McDougal] to dismiss this cause." On August 1, Napier's attorney transmitted an unsigned, unnotarized version of Napier's answers to McDougal's attorney and attached a note stating that he had sent the interrogatories to Napier "to be signed and notarized," that he would forward them upon their receipt, and that he did not "expect there to be any changes to her answers in the interim." McDougal filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice on August 5, 1991, stating as follows:

"[A]s of ... August 5, 1991, [Napier] has not answered [McDougal's] said interrogatories in accordance with the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (the only filings by or on behalf of [Napier] since the court's order of July 12, 1991, being (a) the filing of a notice of appearance as attorney for [Napier] by one Brian C. Isphording, ² and (b) a fax message transmitting on August 1, 1991, an unsigned list of purported answers to interrogatories as shown by attached Exhibit A)."

The trial court granted McDougal's motion, entering a judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Subsequently, on August 14, 1991, Napier filed a motion for relief from that judgment, attaching signed, notarized answers to the interrogatories. The trial court denied the motion. Napier appeals.

Napier contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing her action with prejudice because, she says, her conduct was not willful and because, she also says, the trial court was aware that she had provided McDougal with answers to the interrogatories, albeit unsigned and unnotarized, prior to the expiration of the time allowed by the trial court's order. According to Napier, her failure to comply with the trial court's order was "due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect and not to any disrespect on [her] part."

McDougal contends that the trial court properly dismissed Napier's action with prejudice because of what he calls her "willful failure to answer interrogatories."

In Iverson v. Xpert Tune, Inc., 553 So.2d 82, 87-89 (Ala.1989), this Court thoroughly discussed the standard of review applicable to a dismissal under Rule 37 for failure to comply with a discovery request:

"The trial court is vested with broad and considerable discretion in controlling the discovery process and in making rulings on all matters pertaining to discovery, including the authority to make such rulings as are necessary to protect the integrity of the discovery process. Furthermore, deeply rooted in the common law is the court's power to manage its affairs in order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases, including the authority to impose reasonable and appropriate sanctions for failure to comply with discovery.

"The choice of discovery sanctions is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent gross abuse of discretion, and then only upon a showing that such abuse of discretion resulted in substantial harm to appellant.

"We recognize that the sanction of dismissal is the most severe sanction that a court may apply. Judicial discretion must be carefully exercised to assure that the situation warrants the imposition of such a sanction. Dismissal orders must be carefully scrutinized, and the plaintiff's conduct must mandate dismissal. We have held that 'willfulness' on the part of the noncomplying party is a key factor supporting a dismissal. If one party acted with willful disregard of reasonable and necessary requests for the efficient administration of justice the application of even so stringent a sanction as dismissal is justified and should not be disturbed.

"....

"... The trial court is the more suitable arbiter for determining with accuracy the culpability of the failure to produce ..., and, for that reason, we will show great deference toward a trial court's decision with...