ROBERT L. STEELE, APPELLANT,
v.
BARRY CHAPNICK, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions for discovery violations.
Appellant failed to comply with three separate orders to compel discovery, despite knowing what was expected. The record suggests appellant attempted …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deliberate Callousness cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
This is a timely appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as a sanction for noncompliance with prior discovery orders. Because we find the sanction imposed too harsh in light of the record in this case, we reverse.
Appellant’s responses to requests for production of documents, interrogatories, as well as his answers on deposition, were certainly less than complete. However, in reviewing the complained-of discovery and depositions, it appears that appellant substantially complied with appellees’ requested discovery, such that we do not find the type of willful, contumacious disregard of the court’s order that would warrant dismissal with prejudice. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983). To be sure, a key piece of evidence, the allegedly missing $54,000 check, has never been produced by appellant. This may make appellant’s burden much more difficult should the cause proceed to trial. However, this also suggests alternative sanctions the trial court may consider: precluding appellant from presenting evidence on those issues where appellant has failed to respond to discovery demands; entering findings of fact adverse to appellant on such issues; imposition of fines and/or attorney’s fees. No doubt other sanctions, short of the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice, can be devised.
Having determined that the trial court erred in granting appellees’ motion for dismissal with "prejudice, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ESQUIROZ, MARGARITA, Associate Judge, concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm.
Citing Swindle v. Reid, 242 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), the Florida Supreme Court said in Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983), that application of this severest of sanctions is justified where there has been deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority; and, citing Herold v. Computer Consultants International, Inc., 252 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), the Mercer court indicated such a sanction is permissible when there is bad faith, willful disregard of or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct evincing deliberate callousness.
This court has said that the decision to impose sanctions for a discovery violation, and the severity of the sanctions applied, are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Alfonso, 478 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
There were three separate orders to compel, issued at substantial time intervals. Appellant never complied completely. Appellant’s deposition shows that he knew what was expected of him.
The record on appeal is meager. It includes no transcript of the hearing on the third motion for sanctions.
In my judgment the record furnishes no reason to doubt the accuracy of the trial court’s findings of willful noncompliance and fraud upon the court. The record shows appellant tried to convey to the court that he had wholly complied when he had not.
I cannot say, on the limited record that is before us, that the trial court acted outside its sound discretion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kilstein v. Enclave Resort, Inc., 715 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…rmation is trickling in slowly, which courts have described as “foot-dragging,” not stone-walling. In these kinds of cases, the court should initially devise sanctions and remedies short of the ultimate sanction of dismissal. See Steele v. Chapnick, 552 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing the Kilsteins’ amended complaint and the order imposing costs and sanctions on the Kilsteins and remand for further proceedings. Should furthe…
-
Surf Tech Int'l, Inc. v. Gorham Rutter, Jr., 785 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…d by the appellants should not be condoned, a court faced with the task of enforcement should initially devise sanctions and remedies short of the ultimate sanction of dismissal. See generally Kilstein, 715 So. 2d at 1169 (citing Steele v. Chapnick, 552 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); see also Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Furthermore, because of the severity of the sanction, orders striking pleadings should contain specific findings of a willful failure or deliberate ref…
-
Preferred Med. Plan, Inc. v. Ramos, 742 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…may consider "precluding appellant from presenting evidence on those issues where appellant has failed to respond to discovery demand; entering findings of fact adverse to appellant on such issues; [and] imposition of fines ...." Steele v. Chapnick, 552 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review denied 563 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1990). See generally, Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla.1993) ("a fine, public reprimand, or contempt order may often be the appropriate sanction”).…
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Herold v. Computer Components Int'l, Inc., 252 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Swindle v. Reid, 242 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Earl B. Britt, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 478 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)