Conklin v. Boyd Gaming Corp.
75 So. 3d 589
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Conklin sued Boyd for injuries from a December 10, 2005 fall at Sam’s Town Casino; discovery revealed undisclosed prior cellulitis in August 2005.
- Boyd moved to dismiss under Rule 37 alleging Conklin perjured himself and committed discovery fraud.
- Trial court found Conklin failed to disclose prior leg treatment, prejudicing Boyd, and dismissed with prejudice.
- Conklin argued his misstatements were nonwillful and due to confusion about medical terms and questions.
- Mississippi appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion, applying a four-factor test to sanctions, upholding dismissal under extreme circumstances.
- Court affirmed dismissal and awarded costs to Boyd on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conklin knowingly provided false discovery statements | Conklin asserts no willful falsity; confusion over cellulitis | Boyd shows a pattern of intentional non-disclosure | Dismissal upheld; finding of wilful false statements affirmed |
| Whether dismissal was appropriate sanction for discovery violations | Less drastic sanctions were possible | Deterrent value necessitates dismissal | Dismissal with prejudice appropriate under four-factor test |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 934 So.2d 1006 (Miss. 2006) (affirmed dismissal for undisclosed prior injury while claiming forgetfulness)
- Pierce v. Heritage Props., Inc., 688 So.2d 1385 (Miss. 1997) (four-factor test for discovery sanctions; dismissal upheld when necessary deterrent)
- Gilbert v. Ireland, 949 So.2d 784 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (sanctions appropriate when false testimony not deterred by lesser measures)
- Batson v. Neal Spelce Assocs., 765 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1985) (deterrence; when sanctions required to deter perjury and noncompliance)