Jilek v. Stockson
297 Mich. App. 663
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Medical malpractice case; jury returned verdict of no cause of action.
- Court previously reversed and remanded for new trial in Jilek v Stockson, 289 Mich App 291 (2010).
- Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded to consider plaintiff’s argument on discovery sanctions.
- Issue focused on trial court’s ruling barring experts due to failure to answer interrogatories.
- Defendants sent letters with CVs and anticipated testimony; dispute over sufficiency of responses.
- Trial court allowed limited expert testimony to content of those letters; sanction deemed sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sanctions for discovery violations were proper | Jilek: letters insufficient; seek striking of experts. | Letters provided substantive information satisfying interrogatories. | Sanction limited testimony; not striking; sanction within principled range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co., 216 Mich App 612 (1996) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions)
- Barnett v Hidalgo, 478 Mich 151 (2007) (abuse of discretion scope in sanctions)
- Jilek v Stockson, 289 Mich App 291 (2010) (remand after reversal; discovery-related issues discussed)