Sundor Elec., Inc. v. E. J. T. Const. Co., Inc.

Decision Date17 April 1975
Citation337 A.2d 651
PartiesSUNDOR ELECTRIC, INC., a corporation of a State other than the State of Delaware, Defendant below, Appellant, v. E. J. T. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff below, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

Upon appeal from Superior Court. Reversed.

R. Brandon Jones, Dover, for defendant below, appellant.

John J. Schmittinger of Schmittinger & Rodriguez, Dover, for plaintiff below, appellee.

Before HERRMANN, C. J., and DUFFY and McNEILLY, JJ.

DUFFY, Justice:

This appeal is from an order of the Superior Court entering a default judgment against defendant for failure to answer interrogatories.

I

The action is for breach of contract with damages claimed of more than $25,000. On March 1, 1974 defendant was ordered to answer interrogatories not later than March 15. The Court deferred a ruling on plaintiff's motion to award counsel fees (sought because of delay in answering the interrogatories) and permitted defendant to state any objection to specific questions at the time the answers were filed. In a writing filed on March 13 defendant answered some of the interrogatories and objected to others.

On March 15 plaintiff moved for a default judgment and in granting the motion the Superior Court stated:

'Under Rule 37(a)(3) the answers to interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 are evasive and incomplete. Judgment is entered against the defendant in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2)(c).'

This appeal followed.

II

Superior Court Rule 37(b)(2)(C), like the comparable Federal Rule, permits a judgment by default against a party who fails to comply with an order of Court. Judgment by default is, of course, the extreme remedy and generally speaking the Rule has been interpreted to require 'some element of wilfulness or conscious disregard of the order' before such a sanction is imposed. 4A Moore's Federal Practice (2 ed) § 37.03(2.--5). 1 It has been frequently held that a motion for such a judgment will be granted 'if no other sanction would be more appropriate under the circumstances.' Annot., 6 A.L.R.3d 713 Pretrial Proceedings § 11. To state it otherwise, sanctions provided by the Rule for failure to make discovery 'are not ordinarily applied where there has been an active, good faith effort to comply.' Annot., 2 A.L.R.Fed. 811 Discovery--Failure to Obey § 2. See Warner v. Warner Co., Del.Super., 4 Storey 478, 180 A.2d 279 (1962).

On appeal the issue is whether or not the Trial Court abused its discretion. See Williams v. Hall, Del.Super., 4 Storey 350, 176 A.2d 608 (1961).

III

We agree with the conclusion of the Trial Court that the answers to the questions were evasive and that sanctions were appropriate but, in our view, judgment by default was too severe a penalty. For that reason the judgment must be reversed. We note particularly the absence of wilfulness in defendant's conduct, the relatively short period of time involved and that defendant did file answers within the time specified by the Court. 2 And defendant was specifically permitted by the Court to include objections to questions with the answers to others. That procedure contributed to the procedural impasse.

It seems to us that, under the circumstances found in the record, counsel for defendant (local and out-of-State), and not the party, bear the responsibility for preparing and filing such an inadequate document and must therefore answer for it. Sanctions may be imposed upon counsel under Rule 37(b)(2), which specifically provides:

'In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order Or the attorney advising him or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Lakewood Engineering and Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Quinn
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1991
    ... ... [Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.] ...         Finally, in Sundor Electric, Inc. v. E.J.T. Construction Co., Inc., 337 A.2d 651, 652 (1975), the Court of Chancery of ... ...
  • Cebenka v. Upjohn Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • 4 Enero 1989
    ... ... at 1441 (citing Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 2463-65, ... Cf. Sundor Electric, Inc. v. E.J.T. Construction Co., Del.Supr., 337 ... 242 (N.D.Ill.1984); Flaherty v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 109 F.R.D. 617 (D.Mass.1986). Cf. Yannitelli v ... ...
  • Hoag v. Amex Assurance Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • 21 Julio 2008
    ... ... Ernest DiSabatino & Sons, Inc., 264 A.2d 157, 159 (Del.1970) ... 11. Hurm, 1990 WL ... Potts & Co., 382 A.2d 235, 236 (Del. 1977); Sundor Elec., Inc. v. E.J.T. Constr. Co., 337 A.2d 651, 652 (Del ... ...
  • Holt v. Holt
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • 14 Julio 1983
    ... ... Rittenhouse Associates, Inc. v. Frederic A. Potts & Co., Inc., Del.Supr., 382 ... Sundor Electric, Inc. v. E.J.T. Construction Co., Inc., ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT