Repeated Discovery Violations Could Lead to Dismissal of Case with Prejudice

The Missouri Court of Appeals recently held that dismissing an action with prejudice is an appropriate discovery sanction if the party acts with “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court.”

In Noble v. L.D. Enterprises, Inc. 687 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024), the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed a dismissal with prejudice for Plaintiff’s repeated refusal to engage in discovery.

Plaintiff Brandie Noble claimed she was injured when she fell in a parking lot that was controlled by Defendant L.D. Enterprises on July 14, 2014. In 2018, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages for her injuries. On November 2, 2020, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit and, under the Missouri savings statute, refiled it on October 18, 2021.

On May 25, 2022, Defendant served its opening discovery to Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel. Plaintiff failed to respond within the time allotted, and Defendant filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff also failed to respond to the motion to compel and the trial court thereafter ordered Plaintiff to respond to the discovery requests within 30 days, which she failed to do.

Nearly seven months after serving its initial discovery and still receiving no response, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s petition with prejudice as a sanction for her failure to respond to outstanding discovery on December 13, 2022.  Plaintiff again did not respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. At the hearing for the motion, Plaintiff delivered a “box of documents” to Defendant, which included only partial responses to interrogatories. Neither the responses to the interrogatories nor the requests for production were signed and no certificates of service were provided. The motion to dismiss was taken under advisement by the trial court.

Defendant then filed a renewed motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s petition with prejudice alleging the discovery responses remained unverified, unsigned, and deficient in violation of the court’s earlier order. In its motion, Defendant pointed out that the claim was now nearly nine years old, and it had been forced on three different occasions to file motions to obtain relief. Again, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to properly respond to court ordered discovery even while her claim faced dismissal with prejudice, the trial court sustained the motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that dismissal of her petition with prejudice was an excessive sanction that should be reserved only when an “offending party exhibits repeated and protracted failure to comply with the rules of discovery.”  The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider and she appealed.

The appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. The court held trial courts have an obligation to ensure discovery rules are followed and approved the discretion to impose sanctions that are “just.”  The appellate court agreed with the trial court that Plaintiff repeatedly failing to comply with the rules of discovery constituted a “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court.”  As a result, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of Plaintiff’s petition with prejudice.