Appellant appeals an order denying her motion to rescind a mediated settlement agreement because the appellee’s discovery responses failed to disclose an advertisement and other information potentially adverse to the defense. Because we find that appellee violated her discovery obli
Appellee owned a ten-year-old quarter horse named “Buster,” whom she boarded at a stable. In June, 2009, after observing appellant ride other horses at the stable, appellee asked appellant, an experienced equestrian, if she would ride Buster. Appellant had limited her riding to docile horses in recent years, so she asked appel-lee several times whether Buster had ever exhibited any dangerous behavior. Appel-lee replied, “No.” During appellant’s third ride on Buster, he reared up on his hind legs, bolted off at a fast gallop, then stopped suddenly and abruptly changed directions. As a result, appellant fell off the horse, hit a fence, and fell to the ground. She suffered injuries to her back which required surgery.
Appellant filed a complaint against ap-pellee alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, appellant alleged that Buster had a long and well-known history of bucking and running away with riders and appellee negligently failed to disclose Buster’s dangerous propensities.
During discovery, appellant sent one set of interrogatories and requests to produce. The discovery was reasonably calculated to produce the names of persons with any knowledge of facts at issue, the subject matter of their knowledge, and any “model, plat, map, drawing, motion picture, videotape, or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved.” One interrogatory asked for the names of persons and any documents concerning the care, maintenance, and training of the horse including feeding, medical issues, and riding. The request to produce sought statements and also documents identified in answers to interrogatories.
Appellee answered the discovery by giving twenty names and producing four photographs. Appellee objected to producing statements and documents identified in the answer to interrogatories on grounds of work product privilege. No privilege log was filed. No statements or documents were identified.
Appellant never filed a motion to compel in response to any of appellee’s answers. Appellant did depose appellee and her daughter, who was Buster’s primary caregiver. They testified of some incidences of Buster being “spooked” or “bucking,” mostly as a young horse, but said that was not a “characteristic.” Buster’s personality was described as “a gentleman” who was “lazy, if anything.” Appellee moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the only testimony was that Buster was a good horse.
The parties went to mediation and settled in the fall of 2010. Soon thereafter, appellant’s counsel received an unmarked envelope containing a magazine advertisement for a dietary supplement for horses dated “Spring 2010.” This advertisement featured a page about the horse calming successes of the supplement “Ex Stress,” featuring a color picture of Buster. The advertisement identified Buster’s owner as appellee. The advertisement quoted ap-pellee as saying that she decided to give Ex Stress to her horse, Buster, because he “can be a little difficult at times.” Appel-lee is quoted as saying, “What a difference it made in him. Ever since he’s been on it, we’ve had nothing but great rides.”
Appellee had not produced this advertisement in response to appellant’s discovery requests or mentioned use of any calming supplements. Neither appellee nor her daughter mentioned Buster’s use of calming supplements or “difficult” behavior during their depositions.
When asked by appellant’s counsel, ap-pellee’s counsel admitted that he and his client were in possession of the Ex Stress advertisement at the time of the deposi
Appellant moved to reopen discovery and rescind the mediation agreement and for sanctions. She supported the motion with a verified memorandum. Appellee filed a response in which she contended the Ex Stress advertisement was not responsive to the discovery requests and was not inconsistent with the depositions. The trial court denied appellant’s motion to rescind the mediation agreement and for sanctions, and granted appellee’s motion to enforce the settlement.
Requirement of Good Faith Discovery
Florida courts have long recognized that one of the primary functions of discovery is to enable parties to enter settlement negotiations with an understanding of their chances of success at trial.
A primary purpose in the adoption of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is to prevent the use of surprise, trickery, bluff and legal gymnastics. Revelation through discovery procedures of the strength and weaknesses of each side before trial encourages settlement of cases and avoids costly litigation. Each side can make an intelligent evaluation of the entire case and may better anticipate the ultimate results.
Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette,
“[L]awyers, out of respect for the adversary system, should make good faith efforts to comply with one another’s reasonable discovery requests.” Summit Chase Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Protean Investors, Inc.,
In Schlapper v. Maurer,
In Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani,
[witnesses who give sworn testimony by way of interrogatories, at depositions, pretrial hearings and trial, swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We expect and will settle for nothing less. Lawyers who advise their clients and/or witnesses to mince words, hold back on necessary clarifications, or otherwise obstruct the truth-finding process, do so at their own, and the clients’ peril.
We find that appellee violated her discovery obligations by failing to disclose the Ex Stress advertisement and information known to her about Buster’s behavior which prompted the use of Ex Stress. This information was relevant to appellant’s discovery requests and to some of the questions posed during the depositions. It is likely to be an important exhibit at trial. The appellant has referred to the advertisement in her brief and oral argument as a “smoking gun.”
Rescission of an Agreement for Unilateral Mistake
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.730(c) affords trial courts “broad powers to grant relief as to settlement agreements reached through mediation.” Stamato v. Stamato,
We review a trial court’s order denying a motion to rescind an agreement for an abuse of discretion. See Billian v. Mobil Corp.,
The cases primarily relied upon by ap-pellee do not support her position on this issue.
In Stamato, appellant sought rescission of a settlement agreement on the basis of unilateral mistake, arguing that she did not know that, before she settled, the trial court had already ruled on her motion to seek punitive damages. Stamato,
In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen,
In Rachid v. Perez,
In Sponga v. Warro,
These four cases do not support an af-firmance because they are factually inap-posite to the case at bar. This case does not involve a plaintiff who failed to inquire about certain facts, as in Sponga, or a plaintiff who decided to enter into a settlement agreement that lacked an essential term, as in Krathen. Furthermore, in this case, appellant did not agree to settle the case before checking on the status of other motions pending in the court, as in Sta-mato. In contrast, this case involves a plaintiff who entered into a settlement agreement believing that, after- conducting discovery, she had all of the material facts in front of her, when in fact she did not. There does not appear to have been any reasonable way for appellant to find out about the advertisement or Buster’s “difficult” behavior other than through the methods she had already employed. Thus, appellant’s mistake lacks inexcusable neglect.
As to the second prong of the test in Stamato, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that it would have been inequitable to rescind the settlement' agreement due to appellee’s reliance upon it. During the hearing, appellee never argued that that she had already detrimentally relied upon the agreement, and she did not raise this argument in either one of her written motions to enforce the settlement agreement.
Appellant has filed as supplemental authority Jones v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.,
Although we do not find an order disposing of the motion in the record, we note that the Joneses also asked the trial*1230 judge to strike Publix’s offers of settlement on the seemingly unassailable reasoning that, in the face of a wrongful failure to disclose the address of a key witness, such an offer could not meet the test of “good faith” and the factors set forth in section 768.79(7), Florida Statutes.
Jones,
We find that the same principle applies when a party withholds material information in discovery. Since our system of justice depends on truthful discovery, misconduct in discovery must be discouraged by disallowing the settlement which is the fruit of such misconduct.
Appellant’s additional claim that the agreement should be rescinded because it was unconscionable is denied. This claim is not preserved because it was not presented in her written motion or during the hearing before the trial court.
Appellant’s appeal of the trial court’s failure to order sanctions is denied because the appellant did not file a motion to compel discovery, and the trial court did not issue an order compelling discovery. The purpose of sanctions is to promote compliance with discovery, rather than serve as a penalty. See Winn Dixie v. Teneyck,
The orders denying appellant’s motion to rescind the settlement agreement and granting appellee’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement are reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. Because the motion to reopen discovery was not granted, the record is silent on when Buster was given Ex Stress, when he was “difficult,” and whether this was before or after appellant's injuries. There was no claim made by appellee, however, that Ex Stress was given as a remedial measure taken after the injury to the appellant.