Whitaker v. Becker
2012 Ind. LEXIS 8
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Whitaker was injured in a rear-end collision with Becker and sued for damages.
- Becker's counsel repeatedly demanded Whitaker respond to discovery; Whitaker delayed and provided false, misleading answers.
- An order to compel discovery was issued; Whitaker finally responded with sworn but false information.
- Whitaker disclosed planned surgery only after Becker sought sanctions, revealing a preexisting plan contrary to sworn denials.
- The trial court found bad faith by Whitaker and his counsel and dismissed the case as a sanction.
- Court of Appeals reversed; Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was an appropriate discovery sanction | Whitaker argues dismissal was excessive and not necessary. | Becker argues dismissal was proper due to willful deception and prejudice. | Yes; dismissal upheld as appropriate sanction. |
| Whether false and misleading discovery responses justify sanctions | Whitaker contends responses were not knowingly deceitful on a private medical issue. | Becker contends the responses were deceptive and prejudicial. | Yes; deceptive responses supported dismissal. |
| Whether failure to produce independent medical examination evidence constitutes prejudice warranting dismissal | Whitaker claims prejudice was not shown or could be cured by lesser sanctions. | Becker argues loss of independent medical examination was highly prejudicial and significant. | Yes; prejudice supported dismissal. |
| Whether notice of surgery given to insurer suffices to negate concealment | Whitaker asserts prior insurer notice undermines claims of concealment. | Becker argues notices were insufficient as actual surgical plans. | No; notices did not negate concealment finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., 605 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. 1993) (trial court discretion in sanctions)
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1976) (purpose of discovery sanctions to deter misconduct)
- Prime Mortgage USA, Inc. v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (forged document and incomplete/misleading discovery responses)
- Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. 2006) (discovery sanctions and discouraging gamesmanship)
- Chustak v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 259 Ind. 390, 288 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 1972) (foundational view on liberal discovery and sanctions)