Christian v. Counseling Resource Associates, Inc.
60 A.3d 1083
| Del. | 2013Background
- Trial court precluded appellants' experts for failing to file reports per scheduling order, leading to dismissal on the merits.
- Appellants sought a conference six months before trial to discuss revising the scheduling order; trial court refused to meet or change trial date.
- Court considered two years of sanctions practice under Drejka v. Hitchens Tire Service Inc. and refined its analysis to deter missed deadlines and preserve trial dates.
- Court held informal extensions at counsel's discretion create risk to the trial date; trial court should act promptly to resolve discovery issues.
- This case is one of four consolidated appeals where plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without merits review; the court shifts toward predictability and docket control.
- On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for action consistent with the refined guidelines for scheduling dispute resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in precluding experts and dismissing the case | Christians claim delay prejudiced them and that a conference could have saved the trial date | Health Care Providers argue late disclosures harmed defense and dismissal was appropriate under Drejka | Yes, abuse of discretion; conference could have preserved trial date or allowed new deadlines |
| Whether the Drejka factors should be refined for scheduling violations | Drejka factors are too rigid and do not account for delays and extensions | Drejka factors provide a framework; trial court should balance prejudice and efficiency | Yes, refinements added to provide predictability and better resolution of scheduling disputes |
| Whether failure to promptly involve the court warrants waiving right to contest late filings | Parties informally extended discovery due to conflicts; no timely court involvement | Courts should be informed promptly; extensions granted without court input undermine timeliness | Yes, failure to involve the court results in waived rights to challenge late filings |
| Whether the trial court should have rescheduled the trial date to allow discovery and avoid dismissal | Rescheduling could have preserved the trial date and allowed discovery | Rescheduling would be a disservice to other litigants and the court | Yes, trial court should consider rescheduling when feasible under the refined guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. DuShuttle, 58 A.3d 403 (Del. 2013) (context for Delaware appellate standards and timing of rulings)
- Adams v. Aidoo, 58 A.3d 410 (Del. 2013) (Delaware decision cited for scheduling and dismissal considerations)
- Keener v. Isken, 58 A.3d 407 (Del. 2013) (Delaware decision cited for timing of scheduling orders)
- Drejka v. Hitchens Tire Service Inc., 15 A.3d 1224 (Del. 2010) (six-factor framework for dismissal due to discovery violations)
- Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 902 A.2d 1102 (Del. 2006) (precedent on sanctions and discovery orders)