Whitaker v. Becker
946 N.E.2d 51
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Whitaker filed a damages complaint arising from a rear-end collision by Becker on Dec 21, 2006; discovery requests were served by Becker on Jan 19, 2009 and responses were compelled by court order on June 1, 2009; Whitaker served sworn discovery responses June 15, 2009, but later information showed Whitaker scheduled surgery on June 18, 2009 and that pre-operative events occurred June 1 and June 12, 2009; Becker sought sanctions for allegedly false/hidden information and Whitaker’s failure to supplement responses; the trial court dismissed Whitaker’s action and awarded Becker $3,770 in attorney fees; Whitaker moved to correct error asserting abuse of discretion and argued no prejudice or necessity for dismissal; on appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal but affirmed sanctions against Whitaker’s counsel; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Whitaker's action as a sanction. | Whitaker argues dismissal was unjust and allows amendment or lesser sanctions. | Becker argues dismissal was proper due to concealment and discovery abuse. | The dismissal was an abuse of discretion; reverse dismissal but uphold sanctions against Whitaker's counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapo v. Jefferson County Plan Comm'n, 926 N.E.2d 504 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (abuse of discretion standard; merit-based review of discovery sanctions)
- Hawkins v. Cannon, 826 N.E.2d 658 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (abuse of discretion; review of trial court decisions)
- Peters v. Perry, 877 N.E.2d 498 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (dismissal as a permissible discovery sanction; lesser sanctions not required first)
- Prime Mortg. USA v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (sanctions and proportionality; warning requirement relevance)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ammerman, 705 N.E.2d 539 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (use of expert testimony via records review; Rule 702/703 context)
- Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Soja, 932 N.E.2d 245 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (fairness in adjudication; merits-based resolution)
- Marfia v. T.C. Ziraat Bankasi, N.Y. Branch, 100 F.3d 243 (2d Cir.1996) (equity-oriented approach; deference to merits of case)