Boyd ex rel. Mastin v. Nunez, 135 So. 3d 114

In a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Nunez, Boyd alleged Payne’s expert disclosure was insufficient.
The trial court ordered Payne to be deposed before trial; Payne became ill and could not attend.
Boyd supplemented his expert disclosure twice; Nunez argued the supplements were insufficient.
The trial court refused to consider the second supplementation and ruled Payne would not testify.
A final judgment for Nunez was entered; the Court of Appeals affirmed exclusion of Payne’s testimony as a discovery sanction.
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded to address sanctions for Boyd’s failure to produce Payne for deposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sanction basis for excluding Payne	Boyd contends deposition failure, not supplementation, should be sanctioned.	Nunez asserts initial and supplemental disclosures were insufficient and sanctions appropriate.	Reversed; sanctions must be analyzed for failure to produce for deposition.
Correct discovery standard	The proper rule concerns failure to comply with deposition production.	The four-factor Lumpkin test governs sanctions for discovery noncompliance.	Wrong issue analyzed; remand to apply proper sanction analysis for deposition failure.

Boyd ex rel. Mastin v. Nunez, 135 So.3d 122 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (discovery sanctions and expert disclosures in Mississippi)
Estate of Bolden ex rel. Bolden v. Williams, 17 So.3d 1069 (Miss. 2009) (standards for discovery-related remedies)
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin, 725 So.2d 721 (Miss. 1998) (four-factor test for discovery sanctions)
Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin, 960 So.2d 379 (Miss. 2007) (discovery sanction framework (quoting Caracci))
Caracci v. Int’l Paper Co., 699 So.2d 546 (Miss. 1997) (context for sanctions standards)