City of Jackson v. Rhaly, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 207

Rhalys sued the City of Jackson for flooding of their properties allegedly due to failure to maintain a ditch.
Circuit court struck City's answer for gross indifference to discovery, defaulting in favor of Rhalys; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Rhalys discovered the City’s Manual for Streets, Bridges and Drainage six days before trial, after it had not been produced or referenced in discovery.
Manual governed storm water drainage maintenance and described responsibilities; City’s Rule 30(b)(6) testimony indicated it followed the Manual since 2001.
City had previously asserted no such SOP existed and had provided misleading responses regarding similar prior lawsuits.
Circuit court found substantial prejudice to Rhalys and that sanctions were warranted under Rule 37(e), culminating in dismissal of City’s defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sanction was an abuse of discretion	Rhalys contend gross discovery violations warrant dismissal	City argues sanction was proper under Rule 37(e) and proper weighing of factors	No abuse; sanction affirmed

Amiker v. Drugs for Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942 (Miss. 2000) (discovery sanctions and abuse standards)
Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 689 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (most severe sanctions available to deter conduct)
Pierce v. Heritage Props., Inc., 688 So.2d 1385 (Miss. 1997) (factors for sanctions including willfulness and prejudice)
Scoggins v. Ellzey Beverages, Inc., 743 So.2d 990 (Miss. 1999) (sanctions determined by similar factors)
Airtex Corp. v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145 (7th Cir. 1976) (misleading responses impede discovery)
Bell v. Auto. Club of Michigan, 80 F.R.D. 228 (E.D. Mich. 1978) (incomplete responses equivalent to no answer)