Huber v. Montgomery County Sheriff
940 N.E.2d 1182
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Huber sued the Sheriff for a tort claim in 2007; discovery disputes arose after requests for production and interrogatories.
- The Sheriff moved to compel discovery and sought sanctions under Indiana Trial Rule 37 on July 6, 2009.
- The July 20, 2009 order compelled discovery but did not set a specific amount to pay, and allowed later supplementation if disputed.
- Huber opposed the sanctions via a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on September 22, 2009, again without a hearing.
- Huber paid the $697.50 sanctions on October 12, 2009 and appealed within 30 days of the September 22 decision.
- The appellate court determined it had jurisdiction to review the entire sanctions award despite the lack of a prior hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely and properly before the court | Huber timely appealed after September 22 order. | Jurisdiction limited to the July 20 order; timeliness disputed. | Appeal timely; jurisdiction extends to the entire sanctions award. |
| Whether sanctions under Trial Rule 37 require a hearing | Hearing required before sanctions; no hearing held. | Hearing not required for sanctions per rule or waiver. | Trial court erred by not holding a hearing prior to sanctions. |
| Whether the sanctions were proper and reasonable | Huber did not unjustifiably resist discovery; sanctions unjust. | Discovery noncompliance warranted sanctions for opposing motion. | Remand for hearing to determine substantial justification and reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Gen. Ins. Co. v. Riddell, 705 N.E.2d 465 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (appeal as matter of right from discovery-related sanctions)
- Johnson v. Estate of Brazill, 917 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (timing for appeal requires specific amount order)
- Drake v. Newman, 557 N.E.2d 1348 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (hearing required to determine reasonableness of sanctions)
- South v. White River Farm Bureau Co-op., 639 N.E.2d 671 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (hearing prerequisite for discovery sanctions)
- Baughman v. State, 777 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (sanction awards require hearing)