Misty M. Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Service, Inc. D/B/A Fifth Avenue Pharmacy, and Fifth Avenue Compounding
2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 71
| Iowa | 2012Background
- Whitley sued C.R. Pharmacy for alleged miscompounding of mitomycin-C (MMC) used in Epi-LASIK, claiming injury from an unknown substance.
- Discovery deadline was July 10, 2009; Whitley amended against C.R. Pharmacy after the deadline to add negligence claims.
- Pretrial order required disclosure of all exhibits; Whitley and Pharmacy exchanged numerous exhibits in anticipation of trial.
- New documents surfaced shortly before/during trial showing a March 9, 2006 pickup and a late-time pickup receipt, suggesting the MMC may not have been delivered as claimed.
- Pharmacy did not disclose these documents initially; Whitley sought exclusion and a discovery deposition; the court granted a continuance instead of excluding the evidence.
- Jury returned a defense verdict for Pharmacy; Whitley sought a new trial, giving rise to appellate review of discovery sanctions and evidentiary admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanction for late discovery | Whitley: court erred by admitting late-discovered exhibits. | C.R. Pharmacy: no sanction required since documents discovered post-pretrial order and for impeachment. | No abuse; continuance reduced prejudice. |
| Duty to supplement interrogatories | Whitley: pharmacy violated duty to supplement responses 7 and 8. | Pharmacy: objections/time limits prevented supplementation; no duty to amend. | Pharmacy violated duty to supplement; sanctions appropriate. |
| Use of continuance as remedy | Whitley: continuance was insufficient to cure prejudice. | Pharmacy: continuance allowed time to depose and respond; not an abuse. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; continuance proper. |
| Speculative lay testimony | Whitley: Keane’s testimony on log notation was speculative. | Pharmacy: testimony based on personal experience and logs; admissible as circumstantial evidence. | No abuse; testimony admissible as lay circumstantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Boone, 262 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1978) (discovery rules aim to avoid surprise)
- Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 775 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 2009) (discovery to disclose information to fullest practicable extent)
- Lawson v. Kurtzhals, 792 N.W.2d 251 (Iowa 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sanctions; continuance as remedy)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958) (trial fairness and full disclosure in discovery context)
- Farnum v. G.D. Searle & Co., 339 N.W.2d 384 (Iowa 1983) (discovery aims to disclose information relevant to claims)
- State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1997) (continuance as a traditional remedy for surprise at trial)
- DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56 (Iowa 2002) (avoid strategic error by raising issues during trial)