Landrum v. CHIPPENHAM AND JOHNSTON-WILLIS, 282 Va. 346

Landrum filed a medical malpractice action against Chippenham and Johnston-Willis Hospitals, Inc. and Dr. Deitrick in February 2009 in Virginia state court.
A scheduling order set a November 23, 2009 deadline to identify expert witnesses and to disclose Rule 4:1(b)(4)(A)(i) information; it warned that nondisclosed opinions would not be ordinarily permitted at trial.
Landrum’s designation, served November 30, 2009, identified two experts but did not include the required substance of opinions and grounds for each opinion, rendering it deficient under Rule 4:1(b)(4)(A)(i).
Counsel later sent the experts’ reports (Dec. 10–11, 2009) but did not supplement the designation as required by Rule 4:1(e); counsel acknowledged the deficiency at a January 21, 2010 hearing.
The circuit court gave Landrum until January 28, 2010 to supplement the designation; it warned that failure would result in sanctions, including dismissal.
Landrum filed a supplemental designation on January 27, 2010, but it was not signed by local counsel, violating Rule 1A:4(2); defense counsel later conceded the violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Abuse of discretion in excluding experts for discovery violations	Landrum argues the exclusion was an abuse of discretion for Rule 4:1(g) compliance.	Defendants argue the court properly sanctioned for violation of multiple pretrial orders and rules.	No abuse of discretion; sanctions proper.
Proper trigger for sanction under Rule 4:12(b)(2)	Landrum contends the court should consider Rule 4:1(g) and remedy defects.	Defendants maintain Rule 4:12(b)(2) permits sanction for failure to obey discovery orders regardless of prejudice.	Sanctions authorized for failure to obey orders; prejudice not required.
Impact of Rule 1A:4(2) on signature and validity of designation	Landrum argues the designation was cured by later signatures and should not be invalidated.	Defendants assert the initial designation was invalid and could not be amended to cure the defect.	Supplemental designation void for lack of local counsel signature; no cure under Rule 1A:4(2).
Prejudice versus violation in sanction analysis	Landrum contends prejudice to defendants was minimal or absent.	Defendants emphasize the court’s prerogative to sanction for noncompliance with pretrial orders.	Prejudice need not be shown; noncompliance justifies sanctions.

Kern v. TXO Production Corp., 738 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1984) (abuse of discretion defined by misweighting factors or erroneous legal view)
American Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. C.G. Mitchell Constr., Inc., 268 Va. 340 (2004) (sanctions for discovery violations; trial court discretion)
Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279 (2002) (invalid notice due to lack of local counsel signature; amendment not possible)
Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion review includes potential legal error in reasoning)
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard includes erroneous view of law)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (trial court must not base rulings on erroneous law or clearly erroneous factual assessments)