 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Skowronski v. Munson Medical Center6/3/2003
refuses to facilitate discovery, not when the failure to provide discovery is accidental or involuntary. Traxler v Ford Motor Co, 227 Mich App 276; 576 NW2d 398 (1998). The record should reflect that the trial court gave careful consideration to the factors involved and considered all its options in determining a just and proper sanction. Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32; 451 NW2d 571 (1990). Factors to be considered include (1) whether the violation was willful or accidental, (2) the party's history of refusing to comply with discovery requests, (3) prejudice to the other party, (4) actual notice of the witness to the other party and the length of time prior to trial that notice was received, (5) whether the party has a history of engaging in deliberate delay, (6) the degree of compliance with other provisions of the order, (7) attempt to timely cure the defect, and (8) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. Id. at 32-33.
In the present case, the trial court gave full consideration to the relevant factors. It found that the violations were not merely accidental, and they occurred over a long period. Defendants were prejudiced because they would have traveled great distances to attend depositions without the information needed to participate. Without the interrogatory answers, they appropriately cancelled the depositions, and there was little time to reschedule before the case evaluation and trial. Plaintiffs did not cure the defects in a timely fashion and lesser sanctions would not solve the problems when trial was imminent. Under these circumstances, there is no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing its sanction for the discovery violations.
Affirmed. The stay of proceedings previously granted by this Court is vacated. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Richard Allen Griffin
Janet T. Neff
Hilda R. Gage
|