Attorney's Discovery Missteps Justified Dismissal of Case
Professional Conduct
January 22, 2012
We previously told you about a decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals that reversed the dismissal of a case because of discovery sanctions. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in that case and reversed in Whitaker v. Becker, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2012), Cause No. 02S03-1201-CT-27. In doing so, it did not disagree with the standard applied by the Court of Appeals, just the manner in which that standard was applied.
I don't want to rehash all of the facts of the case. It should suffice to describe the conduct that justified the dismissal in the Court's eyes.
None of the plaintiff's excuses justified this conduct. This conduct was "particularly egregious" and the trial court was entitled to "mak[e] it clear to counsel that this type of behavior is unacceptable." Thus, it could dismiss the case without imposing intermediary sanctions.
When I described the Court of Appeal's decision, I said that it showed "great leniency." This decision prevents others who engage in sharp practice from avoiding severe sanctions.
We previously told you about a decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals that reversed the dismissal of a case because of discovery sanctions. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in that case and reversed in Whitaker v. Becker, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2012), Cause No. 02S03-1201-CT-27. In doing so, it did not disagree with the standard applied by the Court of Appeals, just the manner in which that standard was applied.
I don't want to rehash all of the facts of the case. It should suffice to describe the conduct that justified the dismissal in the Court's eyes.
Here, Whitaker's counsel failed to respond to discovery requests on time, the trial court issued an order to compel discovery, and Whitaker responded in a false and misleading way.
None of the plaintiff's excuses justified this conduct. This conduct was "particularly egregious" and the trial court was entitled to "mak[e] it clear to counsel that this type of behavior is unacceptable." Thus, it could dismiss the case without imposing intermediary sanctions.
When I described the Court of Appeal's decision, I said that it showed "great leniency." This decision prevents others who engage in sharp practice from avoiding severe sanctions.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/313
