Winkle v. Kroger Grocery Store, 519
2017 Ohio 8461
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Joyce Winkle sued Kroger after slipping and falling in a store on January 4, 2013. The case before the court was a refiled action following an earlier voluntary dismissal.
- After refiling, Winkle failed to produce discovery, medical records, bills, lien information, and failed to identify or make expert and lay witnesses available as required by the case scheduling order.
- Kroger moved to compel discovery; the trial court ordered Winkle to respond by November 18, 2016 and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
- Winkle did not comply with the court’s order or respond to Kroger’s motion to compel. Kroger then moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 37 for failure to prosecute and violation of a discovery order.
- The trial court granted dismissal for want of prosecution and as a discovery sanction; Winkle appealed alleging the court abused its discretion by dismissing after violation of a single discovery order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal is an appropriate Civ.R. 37(B)(2) sanction for discovery noncompliance | Winkle: dismissal was an abuse of discretion because the sanction followed a single discovery order and there was no pattern of active court involvement | Kroger: no requirement of prolonged court involvement; notice of possible dismissal was sufficient and noncompliance was willful | Court affirmed dismissal: Winkle’s repeated failures, warnings, and prejudice to Kroger showed willfulness and justified dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Citizens for Open, Responsive & Accountable Govt. v. Register, 116 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (trial court has broad discretion on discovery sanctions)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (1996) (appellate review of discovery sanctions limited to abuse of discretion)
- Toney v. Berkemer, 6 Ohio St.3d 455 (1983) (dismissal as sanction requires willfulness, bad faith, or fault)
- Ohio Furniture Co. v. Mindala, 22 Ohio St.3d 99 (1986) (parties must receive notice that dismissal is a possible sanction before it is imposed)