 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Atlanta v. Paulk6/23/2005
RUFFIN, C. J., JOHNSON, P. J., BARNES, J.
The City of Atlanta ("the City") appeals the trial court's entry of judgment against it following the imposition of sanctions for discovery violations. The City claims: (1) the trial court erred by finding it violated a discovery order and awarding attorney's fees; (2) the trial court erred by imposing sanctions; and (3) the trial court should not have entered judgment against it because it had a valid defense under the Recreation Property Act embodied at OCGA ยง 51-3-20 et seq. Because we find the that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the City wilfully failed to comply with its previous order granting Paulk's motion to compel, and thus striking the City's answer and granting a default judgment to Paulk on the issue of liability, we affirm.
The record shows that in November 2001, Kirk Paulk sued the City for personal injury after he fell while roller-blading on a public street in Piedmont Park that precluded access for cars. He fell when he skated over an area of the asphalt that was cut out and covered with leaves. The City answered and asserted, among other things, that Paulk's claim was barred by the Recreational Property Act.
When the City failed to adequately respond to Paulk's interrogatories and request for the production of documents, Paulk filed a motion to compel. The trial court granted the motion to compel and ordered the parties and their counsel to "appear at the precise location of the Plaintiff's fall on May 28, 2003 at 2:00 p.m." and,
That with regard to Interrogatory 8, Defendant is directed to provide the requested information concerning any work within 50 feet of the location of Plaintiff's fall for a period of 6 months next prior to November 1, 1998.
That with regard to Plaintiff's Request to Produce, Defendant shall produce those documents which relate to the Interrogatories which require the production of documents.
Interrogatory 8 required the City to "identify all work performed by the Defendant or at the request of the Defendant." Paulk's request for production asked the City to produce documents referenced in its responses to Interrogatories 3 and 6, not Interrogatory 8.
In its amended response to Interrogatory 8, the City provided a computer printout of all work order requests "initiated in or for the entirety of Piedmont Park between 5/1/98 and 11/1/98." The work order summary included the date, the work order number, and a brief description of the work. The City also clarified that "the written work order does not specify the exact locations within the park, and it is not known whether any of these orders encompass the area sought." The City's amended response summarized 15 work orders over the six-month period required by the trial court. In a June 27, 2003 letter that accompanied its supplemental response, the City stated that the work orders referred to in "Interrogatory No. 8 have been archived and are not readily accessible," but volunteered to make the work orders available for review by Paulk's counsel. On July 1, 2003, Paulk's counsel wrote to the City and asked for a date to look at these records. When he received no response to this request, Paulk's counsel wrote again on July 17, 2003 and September 5, 2003. On November 14, 2003, Paulk moved to strike the City's answer based on its failure to produce the work orders. On December 30, 2003, the City filed an out-of-time response to the motion and argued that it fully complied with the trial court's order. On January 6, 2004, three days before the January 9 hearing on the motion, the City produced copies of the work orders to Paulk and stated, "As expected, none of
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|