Lancaster v. Red Robin International, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 706

Appellant Diana Lancaster, a former Red Robin bartender later moved to server, sued Red Robin International, Inc., and several Red Robin managers and coworkers for slander in Benton County Circuit Court.
Lancaster alleged coworkers and managers made defamatory statements about her drug dealing and beer slipping to customers, causing damages including lost wages and difficulties finding employment.
Discovery disputes arose in 2008, leading to multiple hearings, sanctions against Lancaster’s attorney, and orders to verify discovery responses.
Lancaster amended her complaint several times; the circuit court struck amendments and later granted summary judgment to all defendants on grounds of qualified privilege and lack of damages.
The court awarded Rule 11 sanctions and attorney’s fees against Lancaster and her attorney, McDermott, and Lancaster appealing the rulings on summary judgment, striking amendments, and sanctions.
On appeal, the court affirmed the circuit court’s rulings, noting McDermott’s separate sanctions were not properly before the appellate court due to lack of separate notice of appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper.	Lancaster contends genuine issues of material fact exist on damages and defamation elements.	Defendants argue qualified privilege defeats liability and damages are not proven.	Summary judgment affirmed for qualified privilege and lack of damages.
Whether striking amendments and imposing Rule 11 sanctions was an abuse of discretion.	Lancaster argues the amendments were relevant and sanctions were unwarranted.	Defendants contend amendments were redundant/impertinent and sanctions appropriate for improper conduct.	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion in striking amendments or imposing sanctions.
Whether sanctions against counsel McDermott were proper or reviewable.	Lancaster challenges sanctions as improper discipline of counsel.	Defendants assert sanctions were within trial court discretion for discovery abuses.	Sanctions against McDermott not reviewable on appeal due to lack of separate notice; otherwise, sanction ruling upheld.
Whether discovery rulings and responses were appropriate.	Lancaster asserts discovery was hampered and responses were inadequate.	Defendants maintain discovery rulings were proper and responses appropriate.	Discovery rulings affirmed; court did not abuse discretion.

Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 365 Ark. 458, 231 S.W.3d 711 (2006) (defamation elements and burden-shifting on summary judgment)
Roeben v. BG Excelsior Ltd. P’ship, 2009 Ark. App. 646, 344 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. App. 2009) (qualified privilege and damages considerations)
Addington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 81 Ark. App. 441, 105 S.W.3d 369 (2003) (qualified privilege limitations and publication scope)
Lee v. Martindale, 103 Ark. App. 36, 286 S.W.3d 169 (2008) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary review)
Battles v. Morehead, 103 Ark. App. 283, 288 S.W.3d 693 (2008) (duty to amend responses under Rule 26(e); sanctions context)
Parker v. Perry, 355 Ark. 97, 131 S.W.3d 338 (2003) (Rule 11 sanctions—ample discretion and remedies)
Parker v. So. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 326 Ark. 1073, 935 S.W.2d 556 (1996) (discovery sanctions and trial court discretion)
Israel v. Oskey, 92 Ark. App. 192, 212 S.W.3d 45 (2005) (scope of striking pleadings; abuse of discretion standard)
Elder v. Mark Ford & Assocs., 103 Ark. App. 302, 288 S.W.3d 702 (2008) (sanctions and discovery abuse standard)
Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751, 911 S.W.2d 586 (1995) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary burden)