Background

• Gilliam and Blankenbecler orally agreed to jointly purchase real property; Gilliam allegedly failed to pay his share of the down payment, mortgage, and repairs.
• Gilliam filed a breach of contract action against Blankenbecler based on the oral agreement and purchase terms.
• In the first case, Blankenbecler moved to compel discovery; the court ordered Gilliam to respond within 15 days.
• Gilliam did not provide any discovery responses by the court-ordered deadline; the trial court dismissed the case, but the dismissal language did not specify prejudice.
• Gilliam refiled the same complaint; Blankenbecler moved to dismiss based on res judicata; the second court held the prior dismissal was an adjudication on the merits.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the first dismissal was on the merits, thus barring Gilliam’s subsequent action.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Richardson v. Tenn. Bd. of Dentistry, 913 S.W.2d 446 (Tenn. 1995) (elements of res judicata)
• Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (requirements for res judicata)
• Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2012) (de novo review of res judicata/legal question)
• Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2015) (trial courts’ discretion to impose discovery sanctions)
• Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. 2004) (sanctions to deter discovery abuse)
• Holt v. Webster, 638 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982) (dismissal as a sanction to enforce discovery rules)
• Langlois v. Energy Automation Sys., Inc., 332 S.W.3d 353 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (necessity of sanctions to preserve discovery integrity)