Task: Text Completion
Input (English): Dismissal of Ogden Teck’s potentially meritorious cross-claim against Terrazzo serves no one’s interest but Terrazzo’s. Terrazzo’s discovery rights are simply not the discovery rights that the trial court was properly protecting by imposing the sanction in this case, and it was an abuse of the court’s discretion to attempt to do so in this instance. In essence, Terrazzo received a windfall due to the over-breadth of the trial court’s sanction, because Terrazzo was wholly removed from the instant discovery dispute. The trial court failed to aim its sanction at the specific misconduct of Ogden Teck, and in so doing, ran afoul of the requirement that the sanction imposed be reasonable — comprehensive, yet not overly broad. See Downey v. Dixon, 294 S.C. 42, 362 S.E.2d 317 (Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the sanction imposed in this case is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction (B) holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim (C) holding that the trial court erred by imposing a sanction that was too lenient to adequately serve to protect the rules (D) holding that trial court erred by imposing sanctions against attorney without notice and hearing but error was cured by attorneys subsequent challenge to sanctions (E) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss
Output (English): (C)