METRO SPORTING GOODS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MUTUAL EMPLOYEES TRADEMART, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Metro Sporting Goods appeals dismissal of its action for failure to produce documents pursuant to a court order. The Florida appellate court reverses, finding the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the harshest sanction (dismissal) without determining whether the non-production constituted a refusal to obey or exploring less severe alternatives.
The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the action without establishing that the non-production was a willful refusal to obey and without considering less severe sanctions available under the rules. The case should be remanded for the trial judge to determine appropriate sanctions in accordance with the available options under Rule 1.31.
“The trial judge did not find nor does the record conclusively reveal that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order on motion to produce was a refusal to obey.”
Establishes that dismissal was improper because the court failed to determine whether non-compliance was willful refusal versus inability to comply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMetro Sporting Goods failed to produce certain documents ordered by the trial court under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.28. The plaintiff did prod…
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 Discovery Non-Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant suffered an order entering final judgment against it upon the ground that it had failed to comply with the trial court’s order to produce documents pursuant to defendant’s motion to produce under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.28, 30 F.S.A. The order dismissing appellant’s action was entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.31(b) (2). This *579last mentioned rule provides in part as follows:
“(2) OTHER CONSEQUENCES.
If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey * * * an order made under Rule 1.28 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done * * * the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:
* * * ‡ ❖ *
“(ii) An order denying the disobedient party the privilege of supporting designated claims or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony * * *.
“(iii) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;” [Emphasis supplied.]
The trial judge did not find nor does the record conclusively reveal that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order on motion to produce was a refusal to obey. The record is susceptible of the reasonable interpretation that the failure to produce the documents was occasioned by events beyond the control of the plaintiff, appellant. The plaintiff did produce some of the documents requested and made an offer to produce any documents that could be located. The document that was not produced goes solely to the issue of damages and not to the existence of the cause of action. Rule 1.31, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, provides several other methods of imposing sanctions upon a party who fails to produce. Under these circumstances, we find the act of the lower court was an abuse of discretion. We do not mean to imply, however, that sanctions ought not be imposed in this case nor do we preclude a finding by the trial judge that the failure was in fact a refusal. We think however, that the rules will be read to produce a greater opportunity for justice if the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for such further proceedings as the trial judge shall determine are proper in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swindle v. Reid, 242 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…usively reveal, that the plaintiff’s failure to produce was a refusal to obey, we hold that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Cf. Metro Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Mutual Employees Trademart, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 176 So. 2d 578. Our decision to reverse the order appealed does not preclude a finding by the trial court upon remand that the appellant’s failure to produce was in fact a refusal. We merely hold that in the absence of either an expressed finding to that effect o…
-
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Lewis, 260 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…usively reveal, that the plaintiff’s failure to produce was a refusal to obey, we hold that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Cf. Metro Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Mutual Employees Trademart, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 176 So. 2d 578.”5 The foregoing holding by the court was reaffirmed in the later case of Ohio Realty Investment Company v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation6 in which the court said: “ * * * We held in Swindle v. Reid, Fla.App., 242 So. 2d 751, opinion filed O…
-
Schmitz v. Ryan, 427 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…hmitz to comply, as found [*1016] by the trial court, and the absence of a showing that Schmitz’ failure to produce the documents was an outright refusal to obey the court’s orders. See Metro Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Mutual Employers Trademart, Inc., 176 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). We do not intend to condone under other circumstances anything less than full and complete responses to discovery requests. We simply conclude that under these peculiar circumstances the cause should be remanded for such other pr…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence