Roberts v. Wortz
2016 Ark. App. 513
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Philip Roberts sued Ed Dell Wortz in Sebastian County Circuit Court; the court dismissed Roberts's complaint with prejudice for failure to supplement discovery.
- The dismissal order (Aug. 17, 2015) relied in part on a prior discovery violation that the court characterized as inadvertent but later found suspect.
- Roberts’s brief cites a December 5, 2014 circuit-court order (continuing trial) and references a December 4, 2014 court letter explaining the earlier ruling; that letter is not in the record or addendum.
- The Court of Appeals held that the missing December 4, 2014 letter is material because the trial court relied on it in finding a prior discovery violation, making appellate review difficult.
- The appellate court also identified deficiencies in Roberts’s addendum and brief: inclusion of irrelevant documents and argument assertions lacking pinpoint citations to the abstract/addendum.
- The court remanded for the circuit court to supplement the record with the December 4, 2014 letter and ordered Roberts to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief after the supplement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing Roberts's complaint for failing to supplement discovery | Roberts contends dismissal was an abuse because the earlier violation was inadvertent and sanction was unwarranted | Wortz argued repeated discovery violations justified dismissal with prejudice | Court did not reach merits due to record deficiencies; remanded to supplement record before appellate review |
| Whether the appellate record is adequate for review | Roberts implied the December 4, 2014 letter supported his position but omitted it from the addendum | Wortz relied on the trial court’s findings (which referenced the missing letter) to justify dismissal | Court found the December 4 letter material and ordered the circuit court to supplement the record |
| Whether Roberts’s abstract/addendum and brief complied with appellate rules | Roberts included irrelevant documents and made assertions without pinpoint citations | Wortz relied on the procedural posture and existing record | Court ordered rebriefing and a substituted abstract/addendum after supplementation; warned counsel to follow appellate rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Transp. Corp. v. Exch. Capital Corp., 84 Ark. App. 28, 129 S.W.3d 312 (2003) (an abstract/addendum may be deficient for containing too much material as well as too little)