Nesmith v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 1

• Decision Date: 19 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. 1,CA-SA,1
• Citation: 164 Ariz. 70,790 P.2d 768
• Parties: Phillip NESMITH and Linda Nesmith, husband and wife, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Robert D. Myers, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge, CHIVES RESTAURANT, INC., an Arizona corporation, Real Party in Interest. 90-030.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 768

790 P.2d 768

164 Ariz. 70

Phillip NESMITH and Linda Nesmith, husband and wife, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Robert D. Myers, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge CHIVES RESTAURANT, INC., an Arizona corporation, Real Party in Interest.

No. 1 CA-SA 90-030.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department A.

April 19, 1990.

Snell & Wilmer by James H. Marburger and Steve D. Leach, Phoenix, for petitioners.

Teilborg, Sanders & Parks, P.C. by David J. Damron and Edythe H. Kelly, Phoenix, for real parties in interest.

OPINION

KLEINSCHMIDT, Judge.

We accept jurisdiction in this special action to settle whether the trial court improperly dismissed one of the plaintiff's claims as a sanction for abusing discovery. We hold that the trial court erred, and we vacate its order of dismissal without prejudice to reconsider appropriate sanctions upon a proper consideration of fact and proper application of law.

This case presented the trial judge with a frustrating dilemma that is typical of discovery difficulties. While the plaintiff's counsel has conceded that he was dilatory in some respects, many of the defendant's accusations about the misconduct of the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel are conclusory, disputed, and at the very least relate to behavior that is subject to more than one interpretation. Both sides presented all this to the judge in the form of assertion and argument, and it would have been very difficult for any judge to have made an informed decision on the matter. It is not surprising that matters went awry. What happened follows.

Phillip Nesmith sued to recover for injuries allegedly received as the result of having swallowed a piece of glass while dining at Chives, a Phoenix restaurant. One of Nesmith's claims, his major claim in fact, is for lost earning capacity.

As the litigation in this case ground on, counsel for the parties became involved in a number of discovery problems. One of the more serious of these involved voluminous business records, the originals of which the plaintiff had made available to the defendant for inspection and copying at the office of plaintiff's counsel. The plaintiff personally, after consultation with his attorneys, refused to turn over custody of the original documents to counsel for the defendant.

After hearing argument on the defendant's Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions, the trial court entered the following order:

THE COURT FINDS that Mr. Marburger's [counsel for plaintiff] tactics with regard to these issues are obstructionist. The Court feels that there is absolutely no reason to refuse to turn over to another lawyer original documents.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the failure to timely respond to the request for production originally and since then has led to a great deal of difficulty on the part of the Defendant to defend the issues of lost earning capacity.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the claim of the Plaintiff for loss of earning capacity is stricken from this case.

The plaintiffs [sic] lawyers are Ordered to pay to the Defendants [sic] lawyers, and not the plaintiff but Plaintiffs [sic] lawyers, the sum of $750.00 pursuant to Rule 37, within 30 days from the date of this Order.

We believe the trial judge erred in four respects. First, Rule 34 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., provides for the inspection and copying of discoverable documents. It does not say that original documents have to be turned over to opposing counsel. While there might be some reason to turn over original documents in some cases, and the court probably has the power to enter such an order, certainly that is not the norm. Nor, given considerations of both convenience and concerns about the safety and integrity of original documents, should it be. We do not foreclose the possibility that upon remand, and upon further development and consideration of the facts and considerations which bear upon the question, the trial court may, acting within its sound discretion, order the plaintiff to turn over the original business records to the defendant. We do not encourage this practice, and we think it incumbent on the party seeking custody of the originals to make a strong showing of need. The most cogent point is, however, that the plaintiff was not required by the rule to turn over the original records and did not violate a court order to do so. No sanction can rest on this foundation.

The second reason we believe the trial judge erred is that he imposed the ultimate sanction of dismissal without expressly finding that the plaintiff personally, as opposed to the plaintiff's attorney, obstructed discovery. Dismissal is warranted only when the plaintiff personally shares complicity in the abusive behavior. Treadaway v. Meador, 103 Ariz. 83, 436 P.2d 902 (1968); Robinson v. Higuera, 157 Ariz. 622, 623, 760 P.2d 622, 623 (App.1988). The defendant, in argument before the trial judge and in its response filed in this court, suggests that the facts support the conclusion that Nesmith personally impeded the discovery. The judge certainly made no such finding. Indeed, the judge seems to have settled on the one thing that Nesmith admitted to, a refusal to turn over original documents, as a particularly egregious abuse. As we noted above, this is no abuse at all.

Third, we can not tell from this record...