Lake Village Healthcare Center, LLC v. Hatchett
2012 Ark. 223
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Hatchett Estate filed nursing-home abuse-and-neglect suit against Lake Village Healthcare, Perennial Health Care, and Santarsiero in 2009.
- Case scheduled for trial in October 2010 with discovery closing shortly before trial; email discovery sought by plaintiff as to 2007 data.
- Circuit court narrowed email search to December 2006–January 2007; ordered production within fourteen days; written order later extended improperly to all of 2007.
- Defendants produced no emails; court found failures to comply, questioned good-faith compliance, and warned of sanctions.
- Affidavits from VCPI indicated data retrieval could be time-consuming and costly; defenses argued impossibility but later admitted no production occurred.
- Circuit court struck portions of the answers related to Residents’ Rights, negligence, and recklessness; remained unresolved on recusal and punitive-damages aspects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in striking parts of the answers for discovery violations | Lake Village contends email production was impossible and sanctions too harsh. | Hatchett argues noncompliance justified sanctions given missed deadlines and orders. | No abuse; sanctions warranted. |
| Whether the circuit court erred in denying a motion to recuse | Lake Village asserts bias necessitating recusal. | Rule 2(c)(2) does not authorize interlocutory appeal from denial of recusal. | Court lacked jurisdiction to review recusal issue at this time. |
| Whether striking the pleadings on the punitive-damages issue was proper | Striking defenses on recklessness prejudged punitive-damages issues. | Recklessness isn’t automatically tied to punitive damages; issue not properly before court. | Not properly before this interlocutory appeal; affirm sanctions as to recklessness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viking Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Jester, 310 Ark. 317 (1992) (sanctions for discovery violations may be imposed for flagrant violations)
- Calandro v. Parkerson, 333 Ark. 603 (1998) (no requirement of willful disregard to sanction under Rule 37; control of docket)
- National Front Page, LLC v. State, 350 Ark. 286 (2002) (trial court has broad discretion to manage discovery and sanctions)
- Cook v. Wills, 305 Ark. 442 (1991) (sanctions proper for discovery violations can occur without prior order to compel)
- Rush v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., 326 Ark. 849 (1996) (sanctions to control discovery to serve judicial efficiency)