Ameristar Casino East Chicago, LLC, Ameristar East Chicago Holdings, LLC, and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. v. Joseph Ferrantelli, Sr., 120 N.E.3d 1021

On March 8, 2016, 86-year-old Joseph Ferrantelli was injured at Ameristar Casino; he sued Ameristar for negligence on October 16, 2016.
Ferrantelli served written discovery seeking statements, documents, and identities of persons with knowledge; Ameristar produced minimal information and identified only four witnesses.
Repeated requests for deposition dates went unanswered; after protracted efforts Ferrantelli moved to compel discovery (first motion). The court ordered Ameristar to provide dates and warned against further noncompliance.
At post-order depositions Ameristar disclosed additional witnesses, recorded statements, and documents it had previously withheld; Ferrantelli filed a second motion to compel and requested sanctions, including default judgment.
The trial court found a “continuous, on-going, and purposeful lack of cooperation” by Ameristar, struck its answer, entered default judgment accepting the complaint’s facts, and later denied Ameristar’s motion under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) to set aside the default.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing or refusing to set aside the default sanction and remanded for a damages hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment as a discovery sanction was appropriate	Amerelli (plaintiff) argued Ameristar intentionally withheld discovery and continued noncompliance warranted striking the answer and default	Ameristar argued default was too severe and intermediate sanctions should have been used first	Court held default was justified given continuous, purposeful, and egregious discovery abuses
Whether Trial Rule 60(B)(8) relief to set aside default was warranted	Ferrantelli opposed relief, noting continued lack of cooperation and absence of contrition	Ameristar argued exceptional circumstances and procedural defects entitled it to equitable relief	Court held Ameristar failed to show extraordinary circumstances; no abuse of discretion denying 60(B)(8) relief
Whether procedural/local-rule deficiencies in handling the second motion to compel prejudiced Ameristar	Ferrantelli argued any technical defects were harmless because Ameristar got to present its arguments at the 60(B) hearing	Ameristar claimed local rules were not followed and it was denied opportunity to respond before sanctions entered	Court found any technical noncompliance harmless; Ameristar’s substantive rights were not prejudiced

Huntington Nat'l Bank v. Car–X Assoc. Corp., 39 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. 2015) (standard of review for setting aside default judgments and appellate deference to trial court)
State v. Collier, 61 N.E.3d 265 (Ind. 2016) (Trial Rule 60(B)(8) requires extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for equitable relief)
Whitaker v. Becker, 960 N.E.2d 111 (Ind. 2012) (discovery purpose and prohibition on concealment/gamesmanship; sanctions permitted for discovery abuse)
Ross v. Bachkurinskiy, 770 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court discretion to impose sanctions including default/dismissal for discovery misuse)
Charnas v. Estate of Loizos, 822 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (default judgment is a severe sanction but necessary to enforce orderly litigation)
Prime Mortg. USA, Inc. v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (intermediate sanctions are not mandatory when conduct is egregious)
Wright v. Miller, 989 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2013) (trial judges are better positioned to determine appropriate sanctions; appellate courts should not substitute judgment)