Trial court’s refusal to step in when asked to resolve discovery difficulties, thereby avoiding the ultimate sanction of dismissal, was an abuse of its discretion.
The trial court precluded the appellants’ experts from testifying at trial because the appellants failed to provide the experts’ reports in accordance with the trial scheduling order. Without any expert testimony, the appellants’ claims failed as a matter of law, and judgment was entered for the appellees. However, the appellants had requested a conference with the court six months before the trial date to discuss the need to revise the scheduling order. The trial court refused to meet with counsel or change the trial date. The Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion. The Supreme Court found that a scheduling conference with the trial court held at the point it was requested would have allowed the trial court to determine whether the circumstances justified a new trial date. The Supreme Court found that the trial court’s refusal to step in when asked to resolve discovery difficulties, and thereby avoid the ultimate sanction of dismissal, was an abuse of its discretion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Case Law Alert, 1st Quarter 2014