Roberts v. Wortz
2017 Ark. App. 349
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Philip Roberts sued Ed Dell Wortz in Sebastian County Circuit Court for negligence arising from a 2006 car accident, seeking, among other things, future income and lost earning capacity.
- Roberts initially answered an interrogatory (Feb 2014) stating he had been a party to a divorce and a 2000 IRS-related criminal matter, but did not disclose a June 2014 federal indictment (and later guilty plea) for obstructing the IRS.
- Roberts filed motions in limine in Oct 2014 and June 2015 seeking to exclude his 2000 tax conviction and IRS records; he did not disclose the 2014 indictment in discovery or in those motions.
- Wortz learned of the 2014 indictment/guilty plea from media reports and moved to dismiss in July 2015, alleging Roberts willfully failed to supplement discovery; the court found this was a second discovery violation and indicated it appeared deliberate.
- The circuit court dismissed Roberts’s complaint with prejudice (Aug 2015); Roberts appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion because no prejudice resulted, the failure was inadvertent, and dismissal was disproportionate.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding dismissal was within the trial court’s discretion given the willful, long-running concealment and resulting prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (Wortz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failing to supplement discovery was an abuse of discretion | Failure to supplement was inadvertent; continuance removed any prejudice; indictment was public record and ancillary to negligence claim | Failure to supplement was deliberate concealment that prejudiced Wortz’s ability to litigate; dismissal is an appropriate sanction under Rule 37 | Court affirmed dismissal — not an abuse of discretion given willful, long-running violation and prejudice |
| Whether prejudice existed from the nondisclosure | No meaningful prejudice because trial was continued and records were public; indictment unrelated to core negligence issues | Prejudice shown: the court and Wortz could not rely on Roberts’s representations; concealment impeded fact investigation and trust in litigation process | Court found prejudice — inability to rely on party’s representations justified severe sanction |
| Whether dismissal was disproportionate | Dismissal is overly harsh relative to an alleged inadvertent omission | Discovery rules allow dismissal for serious violations; courts must control dockets and deter concealment | Court held dismissal was within sanctions allowed by Rule 37 and not disproportionate given egregious conduct |
| Whether trial court needed a specific finding of willfulness before imposing severe sanctions | Argued no deliberate intent shown; court should have required more | Prior violations plus facts supported finding of deliberate conduct; court is best positioned to judge credibility/motive | Court upheld trial court’s factual findings of deliberate and deceitful conduct; no rigid prerequisite of a particular finding required before sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Calandro v. Parkerson, 333 Ark. 603, 970 S.W.2d 796 (Ark. 1998) (sanctions for discovery violations may include severe measures and dismissal is permissible)
- Ross Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Envtl. Recycling Techs., Inc., 2011 Ark. 473 (Ark. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard: reversal when discretion improvidently exercised)
- Lake Village Health Care Ctr., LLC v. Hatchett, 2012 Ark. 223, 407 S.W.3d 521 (Ark. 2012) (deference to trial court’s superior position to judge litigants’ credibility and motives)
- Ramsey v. Dodd, 2015 Ark. App. 122, 456 S.W.3d 790 (Ark. App. 2015) (plaintiffs invoking courts must follow procedural rules; dismissal may be appropriate to protect the docket and opposing party)