Martin v. Jimenez, 493 S.W.3d 347

K.L. Martin sued Miguel Jimenez and Jimenez Granite and Tile Co., LLC, in March 2012 alleging sexual assault and related torts on her minor child F.M.
Defendants denied the allegations and counterclaimed for abuse of process and malicious prosecution; a related criminal case had been closed for lack of evidence.
Discovery disputes arose; defendants moved for sanctions multiple times, and the case was briefly stayed for bankruptcy before reopening.
After a May 6, 2015 hearing, the circuit court entered a May 19, 2015 “Pretrial Scheduling Order” that—among other things—required Martin to produce a list of healthcare providers by May 15, 2015 and warned that one more failure would result in striking the complaint.
Defendants later asserted Martin disclosed a new psychological evaluation on July 14, 2015 (evaluation dated June 25), past the May 15 deadline; the court struck the complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice on August 13, 2015 as a discovery sanction.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding the May 19 order could not support a sanction based on a May 15 deadline that had already passed when the order was entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court validly sanctioned Martin for failing to meet a May 15, 2015 deadline in a May 19, 2015 order	Martin: order was unenforceable as to a deadline that already passed when the order was entered	Jimenez: dismissal was supported by multiple discovery violations independent of the May 15 deadline	Court held the May 15 deadline in the May 19 order could not support the sanction because an order is not effective until entered; reversal and remand
Whether a discovery sanction of dismissal with prejudice was within court’s discretion	Martin: sanction invalid because predicate order was ineffective	Jimenez: court properly exercised discretion based on repeated discovery violations	Court: sanctions must rest on clear, specific, and effective discovery obligations; here the specific deadline was ineffective, so dismissal could not be upheld on that basis

Exigence, LLC v. Baylark, 367 S.W.3d 550 (Ark. 2010) (affirming that severe discovery sanctions are reviewable for abuse of discretion and requiring clear, specific discovery obligations before severe sanctions)
Price v. Price, 16 S.W.3d 248 (Ark. 2000) (judgments and decrees are not effective until entered under Ark. R. Civ. P. 58 and administrative orders)
Hewitt v. State, 208 S.W.3d 185 (Ark. 2005) (oral orders are not effective until entered of record)