Default for Repeated Willful Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders

|

Mobile Investments, LLC and The Broadway Group, LLC v. Corporate Pharmacy Services, Inc., [Ms. SC-2024-0115, Sep. 13, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Cook, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur) affirms the Etowah Circuit Court’s entry of default judgment as a sanction under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), Ala. R. Civ. P. for repeated failure to comply with orders compelling responses to discovery. Specifically, Defendants’ corporate representative, Robert Broadway, repeatedly failed to sit for his deposition, even after the trial court granted Plaintiff’s repeated motions to compel. Ms. *2. The Court reiterates that “willfulness” on the part of the noncomplying party is a key factor supporting a dismissal [or entry of a default judgment].” Ms. *23 (citations omitted).

Defendants argued that failure to comply was justified because its attorney did not tell them about the trial court’s four orders compelling Mr. Broadway to sit for a deposition. Ms. *14. The Court rejects this argument, noting their former attorney’s knowledge “‘is imputed to them,’” so that Defendants “‘cannot hide behind the alleged omissions of [their] former counsel.’” Id. *15, quoting Pace v. Smith, 280 So. 3d 428, 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019).

The Court emphasizes that “[o]ur discovery system is designed to operate through the good faith and professionalism of the attorneys and parties involved . . . [and] ultimate compliance with proper discovery requests is not optional.” Id. Ms. **16-17.

Related Documents

Categories: