To sanction plaintiff Mary Rivers for her total noncompliance with the discovery process, the trial court dismissed her complaint with prejudice, cast costs upon her, and awarded $500 in attorney fees. On appeal, Rivers seeks to challenge the order dismissing her case. We affirm.
Rivers instituted a personal injury lawsuit against James Almand in July 1998. Almand answered and served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on August 12, 1998. When Rivers completely failed to respond, Almand’s counsel wrote a letter dated September 21, 1998, inquiring as
Rivers did not file a written response to Almand’s motion to compel or for sanctions, and the matter proceeded to a hearing. Following oral argument, the trial court dismissed Rivers’s complaint with prejudice.
1. In four overlapping enumerations of error, Rivers contends that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in dismissing her complaint with prejudice. Citing to absolutely no evidence in the record, and apparently conceding the facts outlined above, Rivers now brazenly asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint. We disagree and impose sanctions for the frivolous appeal brought to this court.
Trial courts have broad discretion to control discovery, including the imposition of sanctions.
Daniel v. Corporate Property Investors,
The law authorizing the imposition of sanctions for discovery-related abuses is not ambiguous, uncertain, or arcane. OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) (1). Provided proper discovery procedures are followed, when a party fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition, or fails to answer or object to interrogatories properly submitted under OCGA § 9-11-33, or after appropriate service fails to respond to document requests, a trial court may take any action delineated under OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) (2) (A)-(C). Id.; see
Mayer v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co.,
Here, the evidence confirms that Rivers committed three separate violations of the discovery rules, inexplicably failing to comply with the most elementary requirements of the discovery sections of the Civil Practice Act. See OCGA §§ 9-11-30 (a); 9-11-33 (a) (2); 9-11-34 (b) (2). While an explicit finding of wilfulness by the trial court would have been preferable, “a conscious or intentional failure to act,” as distinguished from accidental or involuntary noncompliance may constitute “wilful” conduct that authorizes dismissal.
Washington v. South Ga. Med. Center,
According to the undisputed evidence, Almand’s counsel served copies of the interrogatories, document requests, and a notice of deposition upon Rivers’s counsel of record. Yet Rivers failed to respond to
the requested discovery or to appear at her deposition. The record contains no reason, excuse, or justification for her nonappearance. Nor did Rivers submit any response to Almand’s motion for sanctions. From this evidence, the trial court could determine that Rivers’s noncompliance was intentional.
James v. Gray,
Although Rivers claims that the trial court abused its discretion, she has offered not a scintilla of evidence to support that assertion. Nothing in the record suggests even an inkling of justification for Rivers’s repeated failures to comply with routine discovery. Nor did Rivers bother to provide a transcript of the motion hearing for review on appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-41;
Wright v.
Southern'
Investment Properties,
2. Since the applicable law is unquestionably clear and this appeal has no arguable merit, pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b) we impose a sanction of $500, not against Rivers herself, but against her attorney for pursuing this appeal.
1
Upon receipt of the remittitur, we direct the trial court to impose upon counsel for Rivers a penalty of $500.
Barron v. Spanier,
Judgment affirmed with direction.
Notes
Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b) provides: “[t]he panel of the Court ruling on a case, with or without motion, may by majority vote impose a penalty not to exceed $1,000 against any party and/or party’s counsel in any civil case in which there is [an] appeal... determined to be frivolous.”