North Druid Development, LLC v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. , 330 Ga. App. 432 ( 2014 )

THIRD DIVISION
BARNES, P. J.,
BOGGS and BRANCH, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/
November 7, 2014
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A14A1101. NORTH DRUID DEVELOPMENT, LLC, et al. v.
POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC.
BRANCH, Judge.
North Druid Development, LLC and North Druid Development II, LLC
(collectively “NDD”) filed suit in Cobb County Superior Court against the surveying
firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, Inc. (“Post, Buckley”), asserting a claim
for professional negligence. When NDD failed to respond to Post, Buckley’s initial
discovery requests, the surveying firm moved for the sanction of dismissal with
prejudice or, in the alternative, an order compelling discovery. NDD did not file a
response to the motion and the trial court thereafter granted Post, Buckley’s motion
and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. NDD now appeals from the order of
dismissal, arguing that the trial court erred when it struck the affidavit of NDD’s
former counsel, which was submitted in support of NDD’s motion to vacate or set
aside the order of dismissal and which was filed on the day the court heard that
motion. NDD also asserts that, given the circumstances of this case, the trial court
abused its discretion by entering the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice. For
reasons explained below, we find that the trial court erred in striking the affidavit of
NDD’s counsel, thereby refusing to afford NDD an opportunity to be heard on the
merits of the sanctions motion before deciding that motion. Accordingly, we vacate
the order of dismissal and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
The relevant facts are largely undisputed. The record shows that NDD filed its
complaint on March 3, 2010, and Post, Buckley filed an answer and counterclaims
on April 7. One week later, on April 15, 2010, Post, Buckley served NDD with its
first interrogatories and first request for production of documents. Although
responses to these discovery requests were due on May 18, the parties agreed to a
two-week extension, making NDD’s responses due on June 1, 2010. When NDD
failed to meet this deadline, counsel for Post, Buckley wrote NDD’s attorney asking
NDD to comply with the discovery requests and noting that Post, Buckley “would
prefer to resolve this situation without resorting to court involvement.”
2
Approximately one month later, on July 16, 2010, Post, Buckley’s lawyer sent a
second letter to NDD outlining NDD’s failure to respond to discovery requests and
demanding that such responses be provided no later than July 21. When NDD did not
respond to this letter, Post, Buckley filed a motion under OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) asking
that NDD’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice or, in the alternative, that the court
enter an order compelling NDD’s discovery responses. After this motion was filed,
NDD did respond to Post, Buckley’s requests to produce by providing it with a
number of documents. NDD, did not, however, file a response to Post, Buckley’s
motion or request a hearing thereon; provide Post, Buckley with written responses to
its discovery requests; or seek an additional extension of time in which to provide
those responses.
On September 8, 2010, Post, Buckley’s lawyer wrote a letter to the trial court
in which it set forth the foregoing facts and characterized NDD’s production of
documents as “limited” and “grossly inadequate and largely unresponsive.”1 Post,
Buckley therefore asked the court to grant its motion and impose the sanction of
dismissal, asserting that such a sanction could be imposed without a hearing. It also
1
Counsel for NDD was sent copies of this letter by both facsimile and U. S.
mail.
3
provided the court with a proposed order dismissing NDD’s complaint with prejudice.
On September 9, 2010, without first issuing an order compelling NDD to comply with
Post Buckley’s discovery requests and without scheduling a hearing on the sanctions
motion, the trial court signed and filed Post, Buckley’s proposed order dismissing
with prejudice NDD’s complaint. Post, Buckley thereafter dismissed its counterclaims
without prejudice and the trial court entered a final order of dismissal on September
24, 2010.
On July 18, 2013, almost three years after the entry of final judgment, NDD
filed a motion to vacate or, in the alternative, to set aside the dismissal order on the
grounds that NDD had never been served with a copy of that order and had therefore
been deprived of its right to appeal. The trial court scheduled a hearing on NDD’s
motion for 9:00 a.m. on October 4, 2013. On the morning of the hearing, NDD filed
the affidavit of Eric Lang, the attorney who had represented NDD in filing the
complaint and during discovery. Lang’s affidavit set forth, among other things, the
reasons for NDD’s failure to comply fully with Post, Buckley’s discovery requests
and a general description of the documents that NDD had produced. At the hearing
on NDD’s motion, the trial court struck Lang’s affidavit and refused to consider it,
explaining that it would not consider the merits of the sanctions motion, but would
4
instead limit the hearing to the question of whether the order of dismissal should be
set aside on procedural grounds.2 After the hearing, the trial court vacated the
September 2010 order of dismissal and reentered the same order dismissing NDD’s
complaint with prejudice on October 11, 2013. This appeal followed.
1. We first address NDD’s contention that the trial court erred in striking the
Lang affidavit and refusing to consider the merits of the sanctions motion. With
respect to this claim of error, we note that trial courts are afforded broad discretion
to control discovery and to impose sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with
discovery requests, and this Court will not reverse a trial court’s ruling on such
matters absent an abuse of that discretion.3 Freeman v. Foss, 298 Ga. App. 498, 499
2
On appeal, Post, Buckley contends that the trial court struck the Lang
affidavit because it was not timely filed. See OCGA § 9-11-6 (d) ([w]hen a motion
is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion”). See also
Alcatraz Media, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., 290 Ga. App. 882, 884-885 (1) (b) (660 SE2d
797) (2008) (“[t]he requirement of simultaneous filing in OCGA § 9-11-6 (d) is not
absolute, and the trial court is authorized to extend the period for filing the movant’s
affidavits”) (citation and punctuation omitted). While there may have been some off-
the-record discussion regarding the timeliness of the affidavit, no such discussion
appears in the record. Rather, the hearing transcript suggests that at the outset of that
hearing, the trial judge struck the Lang affidavit because she was not going to
consider the merits of the underlying sanctions motion.
3
The decision as to whether to strike an affidavit for a party’s failure to comply
with OCGA § 9-11-6 (d) also rests within the discretion of the trial court. Hall v.
Nelson, 282 Ga. 441, 442 (2) (651 SE2d 72) (2007). Given that the trial court’s stated
reason for striking the affidavit was its refusal to consider the merits of the underlying
sanctions motion, however, we analyze this claim of error in that context.
5
(2) (680 SE2d 557) (2009). But a trial court’s discretion as to sanctions is not
unlimited, especially when the trial court is asked to impose the “drastic sanctions of
dismissal and default” under OCGA § 9-11-37 (d).4 Porter v. WellStar Health System,
299 Ga. App. 481, 483 (683 SE2d 35) (2009) (footnotes and punctuation omitted).
Because dismissal of a party’s pleadings for failure to respond to discovery requests
“is an extreme sanction,” it is “warranted only where there exists a clear record of
delay or contumacious conduct, and a lesser sanction would not better serve the
interests of justice.” Serwitz v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 174 Ga. App. 747, 749 (2)
(331 SE2d 95) (1985) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also ASAP Healthcare
Network. v. Southwest Hosp. & Med. Center, 270 Ga. App. 76, 77-78 (1) (606 SE2d
98) (2004) (“the immediate sanctions authorized under subsection (d) should be
applied only in the most flagrant cases”) (punctuation and footnote omitted).
Moreover, before a trial court may enter the sanction of dismissal it must find that the
offending party has acted wilfully, Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Louisiana Forum
4
Where a party fails to respond to discovery requests, OCGA § 9-11-37 (b),
(d) allows a trial court to levy sanctions against that party which curtail the party’s
ability to present certain evidence or pursue certain claims or defenses. And in cases
involving an egregious abuse or disregard of the discovery process, this statute allows
the trial court to enter judgment against the offending party. See OCGA § 9-11-37 (d)
(1); OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) (2) (A) - (C).
6
Corp., 273 Ga. 206, 211 (3) (538 SE2d 441) (2000), and it therefore must afford “the
party against whom sanctions are sought an opportunity to explain the circumstances
of the failure to timely respond.” ASAP Healthcare Network, 270 Ga. App. at 78 (1)
(footnote omitted). Accordingly, “a trial court is obligated to hold a hearing on a
motion for discovery sanctions . . . where it is contemplating the ‘imposition of the
ultimate sanction of dismissal or default judgment,’ for a party’s wilful failure to
comply with” discovery requests. McFarland & McFarland v. Holtzclaw, 293 Ga.
App. 663, 664 (667 SE2d 874) (2008) (citation omitted). As the Georgia Supreme
Court has explained:
what the law contemplates under OCGA § 9–11–37 is a two-step
proceeding before the ultimate sanction of dismissal or default judgment
may be imposed. First, a motion to compel must be filed and granted;
second, after the party seeking sanctions notifies the court and the
obstinate party of the latter’s failure to comply with the order granting
the motion to compel and of the moving party’s desire for the imposition
of sanctions, the trial court may apply sanctions after giving the
obstinate party an opportunity to be heard and determining that the
obstinate party’s failure to obey was willful.
7
McConnell v. Wright, 281 Ga. 868, 869 (644 S.E.2d 111) (2007), quoting Tenet
Healthcare, 273 Ga. at 211 (3). Neither step of this process occurred in the current
case.
First, although Post Buckley’s motion requested an order compelling discovery
as an alternative to sanctions, the trial court elected to skip the first step of the process
and dismissed the case rather than entering an order compelling compliance with
Post, Buckley’s discovery requests. Second, at Post, Buckley’s urging, the trial court
granted the sanctions motion without first affording NDD an opportunity to be heard
on that motion. In its September 2010 letter to the trial court, Post, Buckley asserted
that no hearing was necessary on its motion because NDD had ignored its discovery
requests completely and had not responded to or requested a hearing on the sanctions
motion. In support of its assertion that no hearing was required, Post, Buckley cited
Schrembs v. Atlanta Classic Cars, 261 Ga. 182 (402 SE2d 723) (1991), ASAP
Healthcare Network, 270 Ga. App. 76, and Johnson v. Wade, 184 Ga. App. 675 (362
SE2d 469) (1987). None of these cases, however, hold that a trial court may rule on
a motion seeking the sanction of dismissal without affording the offending party an
opportunity to be heard on that motion. Schrembs involved a plaintiff’s failure to
respond to a single, specific interrogatory. Following a hearing, the trial court granted
8
the defendant’s motion to compel and entered an order requiring the plaintiff to
respond to the interrogatory. When the plaintiff continued her refusal to respond, the
defendant moved for the sanction of dismissal with prejudice and the trial court
granted that motion without holding a second hearing. Schrembs, 261 Ga. at 182. The
Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the order of dismissal, finding that a hearing on
the sanctions motion was not required because the plaintiff had already been afforded
the opportunity, at the hearing on the motion to compel, to explain her reasons for not
answering the single interrogatory at issue and had offered no justification for her
conduct. Id. at 183.5 As the Supreme Court of Georgia further explained in a later
opinion, where a motion seeking the sanction of dismissal is based upon the violation
of an order compelling discovery and that order was entered following a hearing on
a motion to compel, “the record may already contain enough evidence of the obstinate
party’s willful behavior to support the conclusion that any hearing on the issue of
willfulness would simply be duplicative.” McConnell, 281 Ga. at 870, citing
Schrembs, 261 Ga. at 182-183.
5
See also Vining v. Kimoto USA, 209 Ga. App. 296, 297 (2) (433 SE2d 342)
(1993) (offending party had an opportunity to present legal justification or mitigating
circumstances at hearing on motion to compel, so a hearing on the motion for
sanctions resulting from a violation of the order compelling discovery was
unnecessary).
9
In ASAP Healthcare Network, this Court reiterated the rule that “‘[t]he
imposition of sanctions under OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) without a motion, notice, and a
hearing is reversible error.’” 270 Ga. App. at 77 (1), quoting Washington v. Harris,
259 Ga. App. 705, 706 (1) (578 SE2d 286) (2003). And given this rule, we found that
the trial court had abused its discretion in granting a motion for the sanction of
dismissal without holding a hearing on the motion, even though the offending party
had not requested such a hearing. Id. at 78 (1).6 Finally, in Johnson, this Court found
that a trial court’s order of dismissal with prejudice, entered as a sanction for a
plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery, “was without effect” because it was entered
one week after the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. 184 Ga.
App. at 676 (1). Although in its opinion the Johnson Court did observe that the
6
In its September 2010 letter to the trial court, Post, Buckley relied on the
following language from ASAP Healthcare Network: “The general rule may be that,
although a trial court may impose sanctions, including dismissal, against a plaintiff
without a hearing when the plaintiff has completely ignored discovery, has not
responded to a properly served motion for sanctions, and has failed to request a
hearing on the motion.” 270 Ga. App. at 78 (1) (emphasis supplied). In contemplating
what the “general rule” might be, however, the court cited to no cases supporting that
potential rule. More importantly, this language constitutes non-binding dicta. See
Zepp v. Brannen, 283 Ga. 395, 397 (658 SE2d 567) (2008) (statements in an opinion
“concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor
essential to determination of the case in hand” are nonbinding dicta) (citation and
punctuation omitted).
10
motion for sanctions had been decided without a hearing, it never addressed the
question of whether the failure to hold a hearing constituted reversible error.
While its brief does not address directly the issue of whether the trial court
could grant its sanctions motion without a hearing, Post, Buckley does appear to
argue again that such a hearing is not necessary where a party has failed completely
to respond to any discovery requests. Post, Buckley contends that under such
circumstances, the trial court may infer that the offending party’s conduct was willful.
But in two of the four cases on which Post, Buckley relies to support its assertion that
a trial court may infer willfulness from a party’s failure to respond to discovery, the
offending party had failed to comply with a court order compelling discovery and had
been afforded a hearing on the sanctions motion. See Gropper v. STO Corp., 276 Ga.
App. 272 (623 SE2d 175) (2005) (hearing held on the motion for sanctions); Kemira
v. Amory, 210 Ga. App. 48, 51 (1) (435 SE2d 236) (1993) (trial court held two
hearings on the sanctions motion and allowed an officer of the non-complying
corporate defendant to “explain the circumstances of [the company’s] failure to file
timely responses”). In the remaining two cases on which Post, Buckley relies, the trial
court entered the sanction of dismissal without first entering a motion to compel. See
Deep South Constr. v. Slack, 248 Ga. App. 183 (546 SE2d 302) (2001); Fisher v. Bd.
11
of Commrs. of Douglas County, 200 Ga. App. 353, 354 (408 SE2d 120) (1991). But
neither Slack nor Fisher states whether the trial court held a hearing before entering
the sanctions order. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume
that the trial courts in those cases followed the law and provided the nonmovant with
an opportunity to be heard. See Hall v. Nelson, 282 Ga. 441, 442 (2) (651 SE2d 72)
(2007) (“in the absence of any contrary showing, it must be presumed that the trial
court followed the law”). Thus, none of the cases on which Post, Buckley relies
support the proposition that a court may infer wilfulness from a party’s failure to
respond to discovery requests without affording the offending party an opportunity
to explain its conduct.
Moreover, even assuming that a party’s complete failure to respond to
discovery could negate the offending party’s right to be heard on a sanctions motion,
it does not appear that such a complete failure occurred in this case. The record shows
that NDD did produce a number of documents in response to Post, Buckley’s
discovery requests, although it did so after the sanctions motion was filed. Indeed,
Post Buckley acknowledged this production in its September 2010 letter to the trial
court asking that its motion be granted and the complaint dismissed. Given Post,
Buckley’s acknowledgment that NDD had engaged in the discovery process to some
12
extent, the trial court could not circumvent the hearing requirement by relying on
Post, Buckley’s unilateral assertions that NDD’s production was “limited” and
“grossly inadequate and largely unresponsive.” See American Radiosurgery v. Rakes,
325 Ga. App. 161, 168 (2) (751 SE2d 898) (2013) (a trial court “may not impose the
sanction of dismissal without a hearing where the [offending] party has responded to
discovery, albeit in a most tardy manner”) (punctuation omitted), quoting ASAP
Healthcare, 270 Ga. App. at 79 (1). Thus, in the absence of a hearing on Post,
Buckley’s motion, the trial court had no basis for concluding that NDD had failed
completely to respond to discovery.
In light of the foregoing, the court below abused its discretion when it struck
the Lang affidavit and refused to afford NDD an opportunity to explain the
circumstances of its failure to respond fully to Post, Buckley’s discovery requests.
See Taylor v. Marshall, 321 Ga. App. 752, 753 (743 SE2d 444) (2013) (trial court
abused its discretion by granting motion to strike parties’ complaint under OCGA §
9-11-37 (d) without first conducting a hearing to determine that the discovery
violations were wilful); Loftin v. Gulf Contracting Co., 224 Ga. App. 210, 215 (3)
(480 SE2d 604) (1997) (trial court abused its discretion when, at hearing on sanctions
motion, it refused to allow the offending party to explain the reasons for his failure
13
to comply with discovery). Accordingly, we vacate the order dismissing NDD’s
complaint with prejudice and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this
opinion, including a hearing on the merits of Post, Buckley’s motion for sanctions or,
in the alternative, for an order compelling discovery. See Barrego v. OHM
Remediation Svcs. Corp., 245 Ga. App. 389, 390 (2) (537 SE2d 774) (2000).
2. In light of our holding in Division 1, we need not address NDD’s remaining
claim of error.
Judgment vacated and case remanded. Barnes, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur.
14