Roe v. Doe
73 A.3d 132
D.C.2013Background
- In June 2011, Jane Doe sued John Roe for negligent infliction of herpes arising from the 2010 relationship.
- Roe represented himself in discovery and a motion to compel, with an order to file a certified STD test under seal.
- Roe filed December 2011 STD results (mainly chlamydia/gonorrhea) not in the required herpes-specific form or under seal as ordered.
- In January 2012 Roe took a herpes-specific test; in February 2012 the court sanctioned him for non-compliance, barring him from contesting that he had herpes.
- On trial, the court instructed the jury that Roe had herpes in late 2009/2010 due to the sanction, and the verdict went against Roe (Doe prevailing on negligence).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the sanction extreme and abusive, and remanded for a new trial with judgment vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery sanction was an abuse of discretion | Doe contends sanction was willful and disproportionately severe | Roe contends sanction was warranted to enforce discovery | Yes; the sanction was an abuse of discretion and overly punitive |
| Whether the sanction prejudicially deprived Roe of a defense | Doe argues no prejudice from delayed herpes-test results | Roe asserts the sanction foreclosed defenses about not having herpes | Yes; sanction excessively prejudicial and precluded defenses, warranting reversal |
| Remedy for improper sanction | N/A | N/A | Remand for new trial; vacate judgment to allow proper defenses and proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 568 A.2d 479 (D.C.1990) (sanctions must fit the offense; abuse of discretion if too strict)
- Vincent v. Anderson, 621 A.2d 367 (D.C.1993) (sanctions must be proportional to the offense and its effects)
- Smith v. Fairfax Village Condo. VIII Bd. of Directors, 775 A.2d 1085 (D.C.2001) (extreme sanctions only for severe circumstances; need prejudice and willfulness)