` I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 1 4 4 2 - S CT M ARGUERI TE B . HO LDER A ND H ERBER T HO LDER
v. O RA N G E GR O V E M ED IC A L S P E C I A L T I ES , P.A ., AN D B OYD BENE FI

EL D, M . D. ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 29/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J ERR Y O. TE RRY, S R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANTS : L. CHRI S TOP HER BR EARD AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : S T E P HE N GI L E S P E RE S I CH J OHANN A M AL BR OUGH Mc M UL L AN BR I AN DOU GL AS M AYO NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS ED. T HE J UDGMENT O F T H E H A R R IS O N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT CO UR T I S REI NS T AT E D AND A F F I RMED - 12/ 09/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. M a rg u e rite H o ld e r a n d h e r h u sb a n d , H e rb e rt H o ld e r (th e H o ld e rs) , file d a m e d ica lnegl i gence s ui tagai ns tO r ange G r ove M edi cal Speci al t i es , P. A
. ; B oyd B enef i el d, M
. D
. ; and J ohn D oes O ne thr ough Fi ve ( O r ange G r ove) on D ece m ber7, 2006, i n the C i r cui tC our tf or the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on Count y. O n J ul y 29, 2008, al m os tone yea rand ei ght

### 2

m onths l at er , the ci r cui tj ud ge dis m i s s ed the s ui tw i th pr ej udi ce, as t o eac h def endant , f or
w antof prosecut i on i n acc or dance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 41( b)
. T he H ol der s appea l ed the di s m i s s al , and the C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed the ci r cui tcourt , hol di ng th a t th e c ir c u it ju d g e sh o u ld h a v e im p o s e d a le s s e r s a n c tio n . Holderv. O r ange G r ove Med. S p e c ia ltie s, P. A. , _

__ S o . 3 d _ _ _ , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 1 2 6 7 (M is s . C t. A p p . J a n . 5 , 2 0 1 0 ), reh ’g deni ed ( M a y 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 )
. Or a n g e Gr o v e p e t i t i o n e d th i s Co u r tf o rwr i to f c e r t i o r a r i , wh i c h we g ra n te d
. Hol

de rv. Or a n g e Gr o v e Me d . S p e c ia ltie s, P. A. , 39 So. 3d 5 (M i s s . 2010). F i ndi ng
e rr o ri n t h e Co u r to f

Ap p e a l s ’ j u d g me n tr e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s Ru l e 4 1 ( b ) d i s mi s s a l , we
r ever s e the dec i s i on of

the C our tof

A ppeal s an d rei ns t at e and a f f i r m the j udgm entof

t he C i r cui tC our tf

orthe Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ounty. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. T he f

ol l ow i ng hi s t ory, i n l ar ge part , i s t aken f r om the f act s and tr i al
- court pr ocee di ngs as setou ti n the opini on of the C ou rtof A pp eal s. ¶3. O n Sept ember21, 2004, M argueri t e w as adm i t t ed t o G ar den Park M edi cal C ent er af t erhavi ng be en di agnos ed w i th a ne w ons etof a tr i al f i br i l l at i on. She w as di s char ged f r om G ar den Park on oraboutSept ember2 6, 2 00 4, by D r . B enef i el d and pl ace d on the bl oodthi nni ng m edi cat i on, C oum adi n. ¶4. A ccor di ng t o the compl ai nt , bl ood t es t s t aken on O ct ober 6, 2004, i ndi cat ed thather C oum adi n l evel s w er e ther apeut i cal l y t oo hi gh f orhercondi t i on and pl ace d herata gr eat er
r i s k f ora s tr oke. N o change i n herther apy w as or dered, b ut a f ol l ow - up appoi nt m entw as

### Th e recorddo es no t pro vid e Dr. S hah ’s full n ame. 1 

### In the ir answe r, the def

endants a dmi tt ed that Marguerit e had an appointm ent 2 

### sc hedul ed wi th Dr . Shah for Octob er 15, 2004, but

the y dis pute d that Margue ri tehad a follo w-up ap po intment scheduledfor b loo d w orkto b e p erformedat the Oran ge G rov e clinic on Oct ober

13. Acc ording to t

he com plaint , theplaintif

fs al le ged the f

oll owing a ct s of

negl ige nce : 3 

### (1 ) De f e nd ant s ne gl i ge ntly f

a i l e d t o m on i t or

and a dj us t Margu e ri t e ’s Couma din t

herapy, whic h re sulte d in her bec oming overly antic oagul at ed and ca use d her to s uff er thehem orr

hagi c s troke; (2) Orange Grove isres ponsiblefor thenegli gent act s of i ts em

ploye es , ba se d on thethe ory of

re sponde at

supe ri or; (3) O rang e Gro ve w as neg lig en t inf ailing to h ave a reaso nab le pro toco l in pla ceto preve nt ove r anti coa gulati on in a patie nt s uch a s Margue ri te ; (4) T he nurse emp loy ee/emplo yees o f Oran ge G rov e was/w ere neg ligent in not pe rf orm ing a fol low- up antic oagul ation s tudy on O ctober 13, 2004, 3 m ade f orO ct ober13, 2004. A l so, an appoi nt m enthad bee n s chedul ed w i th D r . Shah, 1 M a rg u e rite’ s c a rd io lo g ist, w h o a p p a re n tly h a d b e e n c a lled in a s a c o n su ltan t b y D r. B e n e fie ld
w h e n M a rg u e rite w a s in th e h o sp ital. 2 ¶5. T he pl ai nt i f

f s al l eged that w hen M ar guer i t e arr i ved f or her app oint m ent atO r ange G r ove on O ct ober13, s he w as t ol d by an unnamed empl oyee, w ho w as a nur s e at[ the] cl i ni c, thataddi t i onal bl ood w or k w oul d notbe nec es s ary beca us e i thad bee n per f or m ed the w eek bef or e. M ar guer i t e di d nots ee the doct orthatday, and no adj us t m ent s w er e made t o her C oum adi n dos age. T he f ol l ow i ng day, on O ct ober14, 2004, M ar guer i t e s uf f er ed a hemorrhagi c s tr oke. ¶6. T he pl ai nt i f

f s f i l ed thei rcompl ai nton D ece m ber7, 2006, m or e than tw o year s af t er M a r g u e r i t e h a d s u f

f e r e d h e rs tr o k e . Th e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a mo t i o n f

o re n l a r g e me n to f

t i me 3

### Marguerit e’ s ret urn vi si t, and/ or fa il ed to dis cus s thematte r with a physi ci an; (5) O rang e Gro ve an d D r. B enefieldwere n eglig ent inno t hav ing an ad equ ate sys tem for moni toring Coum adin the ra py and/ or having s tudi es per for me d loc al ly and te st

re sults imme diate ly avai la blefor thep hy sicians’ re vie w and reactionto in cr ea sin g anticoag ulatio n, p lacing a patient at unnecessarily inc re as ed ris k of s troke; (6) D efend ants D oes On e throu ghFiv e, wh ose id entities are unkno wnat this time, are gu ilty o f suchacts of n eglig ence, wh ich are, at p resent, unkno wnto Plaintiffs, but may b e disco veredduring trial prep arationof th is case; (7) Def endants , col le ctive ly, aregui lt y of s uch othe r ac ts of

ne gli genc e as may be d iscov ered durin g trial p reparatio n o f this case. 4 in w h ich to file a n a n sw e r, w h ich w a s g ra n ted o n Ja n u a ry 8 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e d e fe n d a n ts tim e ly filed th e ir a n sw e r a n d d e fe n se s to th e p lain tiffs’ c o m p lain t o n F e b ru a ry 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 . A lo n g w ith t hatmot i on , the de f

e nd a nt s f i l e d a mot i on t o c ompe l w a i ve rof medi c a l pr i vi l e ge s , w hi ch i ncl uded thei r“ Fi r s tSetof I nt err ogat or i es and R eques t s f orPr oduct i on of

D ocument s t o the P la in tif fs .” ¶7
. O n M ar ch 8 , 20 07 , pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ou ns e l s e ntc orr e s po nd e nc e t o d e f e nd a nt s ’ couns el advi s i ng thathe w as i n tr i al on anothermat t er“f orthe nextcoupl e of

days ” and w oul d not be abl e t o compl et e di s covery unt i l thattr i al w as concl uded. ¶8
. O n M ay 4, 2007, def e nd a nt s ’ c ou ns e l s e ntc orr e s po nd e nc e t o p l a i nt i f f s ’ couns el i n q u i r i n g wh e n r e s p o n s e s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ d i s c o v e ry r e q u e s t s wo u l d b e c o mp l e t e d
. On M a y 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l p ro v id e d th e d e fe n d a n ts w ith a n “ A u th o ri z a tio n to D is c lo s e , R e le a s e a n d F u rn is h P ro te c te d H e a lth In fo rm a tio n .”

### 5

¶9. O n M ay 24, 2007, def endant s ’ couns el r ef

axed hi s M ay 4 i nqui ry aboutcompl et i on of di s covery t o pl ai nt i f

fs ’ coun sel , and di d s o agai n on J une 4, 2007. A ccor di ng t o t he def endant s , eac h r eques tw as i gnor ed. ¶ 1 0
. A p p ro x im a te ly o n e y e a r la te r, o n M a y 5 , 2 0 0 8 , p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l se n t a le tter to d e fe n d a n ts’ c o u n se l re q u e stin g to tak e D r. B e n e fie ld ’s d e p o sitio n . T w o d a y s la ter , w h ile s til l nothavi ng ans w er ed the def endant s ’ di s covery, pl ai nt i f f s ’ c ouns el f

i l ed i nt err ogat or i es and
re q u e sts fo r p ro d u c tio n o f d o c u m e n ts. O n M a y 9 , 2 0 0 8 , th e d e fe n d a n ts file d a m o tio n to di s m i s s f orf ai l ur e t o pr os ecut e, ci t i ng i n partthe pl ai nt i f f s ’ f ai l ur e t o ans w erdi s covery. ¶11. O n M ay 22, 2008, the pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed ans w er s t o the i nt err ogat or i es a nd r eques t s f or pr oduct i on of

document s w hi ch had be en pr opounded by the def endant s on F ebruary 12, 2007, m or e than f

i f t een mont hs ear l i er , al ong w i th a mot i on t o compel the depos i t i on of def endant , D r . B enef

i el d. T he def

endant s r es ponded on J une 10, 2008, by f i l i ng a mot i on
s eeki ng t o s tr i ke the pl ai nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o compel D r . B enef i el d’ s depos i t i on. O n J ul y 24, 2 0 0 8 , the p lain tif

fs filed th e ir re sp o n se to th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss fo r fa ilu re to pr os ecut e. ¶ 1 2
. T h e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss ca m e b e fo re the C irc u it C o u rt o f H a rriso n C o u n ty on J ul y 25, 2008. A f

t era hea r i ng on the mat t er , the t ri al co urto r der ed the ca s e di s m i s s ed
w i th pr ej udi ce, hol di ng: I f eel l i ke thatthe delays i n res po nd i ng t o dis cov ery and n ot purs uing t he case as i ts hould have be en f orthi s per i od of

t i m e i s cert ai nl y s uf

f i ci entf orthe C our tt o deem t hatthe ca s e w as n ot pur s ued pr oper l y; thati ts houl d be di s m i s s ed f

orf ai l ur e t o pr os ecut e the ca s e.

### 6

¶1 3. U pon r e qu e s tf

r om pl a i nt i f

f s ’ couns el t hata s t at ement of f i ndi ngs of

f act and
c on c l us i on s of

l a w be made by the c ou r t , the tr i a l j ud ge s t a t e d: “ I ’ m notgo i ng t o m ake a f i ndi ng of f actand conc l us i on of

l aw a ny f

ur therthan adopt i ng the ar gum entof couns el f

or the def endant , the ca s es thathe has ci t ed as t o the bas i s f or t he dis m i ssal [ s i c]
. A nd t he
r ecor d s peaks f

ori t s el f
. T hat ’ s i t . ” Holder , 2010 W L 11267 at**1- 2, ¶¶2- 12. PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶ 1 4
. B e fo re th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, th e H o ld e rs a ss e rte d th a t th e tria l c o u rt h a d a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d ism iss in g th e c a se fo r w a n t o f p ro se c u tio n . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls th o ro u g h ly addr es s ed the i s s ue and r ever s ed the tr i al court , f i ndi ng thatther e w as no actual or p re su m p tiv e p re

ju d ice to th e d e fe n d a n ts a n d th a t n o a g g ra v a tin g fa c to rs w e re p re se n t. Holder , 2010 W L 11267 at*7, ¶41. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 1 5
. O n J u ly 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , w e g ra n te d th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ p e titio n fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri
. Holder
v. O r ange G r ove Med. Specialities , 3 9 S o . 3 d 5 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). ¶16. W e empl oy an abus e- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d w hen r evi ew i ng a tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al fo r fa ilu re to p ro s e c u te p u rs u a n t t o R u le 4 1 (b ). Am . Tel . & Tel . v. D ay s I

nn of W inona , 720 So. 2d 178, 180 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng W al lace v. Jones , 57 2 S o . 2 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). “B eca us e the l aw fa vor s a t r i al of the i s s ues on the m er i t s , a di s m i s s al forl ack of pr os ecut i on i s empl oyed r el uct ant l y. ” Miss. D ep ’t of Hu m an S ervs. v. G u idry , 830 So. 2d 628, 632 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng A m . T e l. & T e l. , 7 2 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 8 0 ; W ats on v. L il

lard , 493 So. 2d 1277, 1 2 7 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )).

### 7

¶17. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 41( b) perm i t s def endant s t o m ove f

ordi s m i s s al
o f a n y a c tio n “ [f] o r fa ilu re o f th e p lain tiff to p ro se c u te . . . .” M iss . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ). “R u le 41 (b) em bo dies the tenetthat ‘ any cou rtof l aw or equ i ty m ay exerci se the p ow er t o d i sm i ss f orw antof

pr os ecut i on. T hi s pow er , i nher entt o the court s , is n ecess ary as a means t o t he
or der l y expedi t i on of

j us t i ce a nd the court ’ s contr ol of i t s ow n docket
. ’ ” H il l m an v. W e a th e rly , 14 So. 3d 721, 726 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng C ucos, I nc. v. McD ani el , 938 So. 2d 238, 240 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng W a lk e r v . P a rn e ll , 566 So. 2d 1213, 1 21 6 ( M i s s . 1990) ( quot i ng W

at s on , 493 So. 2d at1278)
. M ot i ons f orf ai l ur e t o pr os ecut e ar e cons i der ed on
a c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s is
. I

d . ( ci t i ng A m . T

e l. & T e l. , 720 So. 2d at181 ( ci t i ng W al lace , 572 So. 2d a t376) )
. “Ther e i s no s ett i m e l i m i ton the pr os ecut i on of a n a ct i on onc e i thas been f i l ed, and di s m i s s al f

orf ai l ur e t o pr os ecut e w i l l be uphel d onl y ‘ w her e the r ecor d show s the pl a i nt i f f ha s be e n g ui l ty o f

di l a t ory o rc on tumac i ou s c on du c t . ’ ” Mis s . D ep’t of Hum an S e r v s ., 830 So. 2d at632 ( ci t i ng W at s on , 49 3 S o. 2d at 127 8). F i nall y, this C ou rtal so m ust
c o n s id e r w h e th e r l e s s e r s a n c tio n s w o u ld s u ff ic e . I d. at633 ( ci t i ng A m . T

e l. & T e l. , 720 So. 2 d a t1 8 1
- 8 2 )
. W e a l s o a r e “ mi n d f u l o f th e f a c tth a t‘ d i s mi s s a l wi th p r e j u d i c e i s a n e x tr e me and har s h s anct i on thatdepr i ves a l i t i gantof the opportuni ty t o purs ue hi s cl ai m , and any di s m i s s al s w i th pr ej udi ce a r e r es erved f orthe mostegr egi ou s cas es . ’ ” Hof f m an v. P aracel s us H eal th Car e Cor

p. , 752 So. 2d 1030, 1034 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng W al lace , 572 S o . 2 d at 37 6 ). ¶18. I n s um , thi s Courtmay uphol d a R ul e 41( b) di s m i s s al w hen ther e i s : ( 1) a r ecor d of di l at ory orcontum aci ous conductby t he pl ai nt i f f ; and ( 2) a f

i ndi ng by thi s C our tthatl es s er

### Rule33(b)( 3) re quires plaintif fs to s er ve t heir answe rs , and any obj ec ti ons ther et o, 4 

### within t hir ty days of

re ce iving thedef

endant’ s inte rrogat ori es . TheHolde rs re ce ive d the def endants ’ inte rrogat ori es on Febr uar y 12, 2007, and answe re d them on May 22, 2008, 435 day s past th e dead line. Rule4.04(A) s tate s in part: “Al l discov ery must be c ompl et ed wi thin nine ty days 5 

### from s er vic e of an a nswe r b y theappl ic abl e de fe ndant .”The de fe ndant s answe re d on Feb ruary12 , 20 07 , andthe H old ers didn ot beg in their disco veryuntil May5 , 20 08 , almost a ye ar pas t t he May 12, 2007, dea dline. Rule 4.0 3 of the Uni for m Rul es of Circ uit

and County Court

Pra ctic e r equire s 6 

### plaintiffs to reply to a motionto dismiss w ithinten d ays. T he d efend ants’ mo tionto d ismiss was fi le d on May 9, 2008. TheHol der s re sponde d on July 24, 2008, more than two months af te r the de adl inese t by Rul e 4. 03. 8 s anct i ons w oul d nots erve the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce. A ddi t i onal “aggr avat i ng f act or s ” oractual pr ej udi ce may bol s t erthe ca s e f ordi s m i s s al , butar e notre qui r ement s . W e addr es s each of th e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s b e l o w. A
. C l earR ecord of

D elay ¶ 1 9
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o rr e c tly fo u n d a c le a r r e c o rd o f d e la y in to d a y ’s c a s e . Holder , 2 0 1 0 W L 1 1 2 6 7 at *5 , ¶2 8
. T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls m ad e the foll o w ing fi n d ing s w ith reg ard t o del ay: the H ol der s di d nots ubm i tthei ra ns w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es unt i l 435 days pa s tthe d e a d lin e se t b y M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 3 3 (b )(3 ); th e H o ld e rs d id n o t b e g in th e ir 4
ow n di s cove r y un t i l a l mos ta y e a rp a s tthe d e a dl i ne s e tb y U ni f orm R ul e o f

Ci r c ui tand C o u n ty C o u rt P ra c tice 4 .0 4 (A ); a n d th e H o ld e rs fa iled to re p ly to th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to 5 di s m i s s w i thi n the t en- day t i m e l i m i ti n R ul e 4. 03( 2) of t he U nif orm R ul es of

C i r cui tand C ounty C our tPr act i ce. Holder , 20 10 W L 1 12 67 at *3, ¶¶17 -20. B ased on these fi nd i ng s, 6 th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t:

### 9

t he r e c or d s ub s t a nt i a l l y s up po r t s the tr i a l c ou r t ’ s f i nd i ng of di l a t ory c onduc t o n th e p a rt o f th e p lain tiffs. W h e th e r th e p lain tiffs’ fa ilu re to tim e ly e n g a g e in di s covery, as cl ai m ed by the pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el , w as uni nt ent i onal i s of no m om entt o t hi s C our t , f orthe f act s her e cl ear l y evi nce i nexcus abl e del ay. W hi l e ther e may be i ns t ance s w her e del ay, under the ci r cumst ance s , m ay be excus abl e, w e ca n s ay unequi vocal l y thatthe as s ert ed r eas on f orthe del ay as s t at ed by c ouns el f

orthe pl ai nt i f

f s , w hi ch he a t tr i but ed t o s t af f i ng di f f i cul t i es athi s l aw off

i ce a nd hi s havi ng othertr i al s t o cont end w i th, w arr ant s no s uch cons i der at i on. I n the cas e atba r , c ouns el ’ s mi s t aken be l i ef thats om eone f

r om hi s l aw of

f i ce had t i m el y ans w er ed the def endant s ’ pr opounded di s covery and f i l ed the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ ow n di s covery r eques t s , cons t i tut es –atthe very l eas t–del ay by negl i gentom i s s i on. Holder , 2010 W L 11267 at*3, ¶21. ¶20. A s how i ng of del ay or contum aci ous conduct i s s uf f i ci ent f or a R ul e 41( b) di s m i s s al
w h e n a le s s e r s a n c tio n w o u ld n o t se rv e th e b e s t in te re s ts o f ju s tic e . A m . T e l. & T e l. , 720 S o. 2d at 181 ( ci t i ng R ogers v. K r ogerCo. , 669 F. 2d 317, 320 ( 5th C i r . 1982) )
. “D el ay al one
m a y s u ff ic e ” fo r a d is m is s a l u n d e r R u le 4 1 (b ). Cox , 9 7 6 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 5 (em p h asis ad d ed ). “F ac tors o ther tha n d elay are n o t r eq u ir ed
. T h e stan d ard is w h ethe r th ere i s ‘a clea r reco rd of del ay or contum aci ous c onductby the pl ai nt i f f
. . . . ’ ” I d . ( ci t i ng A m . T

e l. & T e l. , 720 So. 2 d at 18 1 (em p h asis ad d ed )). ¶2 1
. W e p re v iou sly ha v e h eld tha t rep ea ted fail u res t o co m p ly w ith d isc o v e ry re q u e sts
w a rr a n t d is m is s a l w ith p re ju d ic e . B eck v. Sapet , 937 So. 2d 945, 950 ( M i s s . 2006) ( f i ndi ng
a “ p a ttern o f c o n sis ten t fo llo w -u p re g a rd in g p e n d in g re q u e sts ” ); s ee al s o H il l m an v. W e a th e rly , 14 S o. 3d 721, 723 ( M i s s . 2009) ( def endanthad s entpl ai nt i f

f a “good- f

ai th l ett er req u esti n g an sw ers to d isco v ery ” three m o n ths a ft er p rop o u n d ing fir st set of i n terrog atories). In the p res ent cas e, coun sel f or the defend ants s ent his f i rs ts etof i nterrogat ori es t o p l ai nti ff s’

### Foll owup inquire s we rese nt on May 4, May 24, and June4, 2007. 7 

### 10 couns el on February 12, 2007. P l ai nt i f f s ’ couns el r es ponded t o the r eques t s by
c o rre sp o n d e n c e sta tin g th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e a b le to c o m p lete d isc o v e ry b e c a u se h e w a s in trial o n a n o th e r m a tter. D e fe n d a n ts’ c o u n se l fo llo w e d u p thr e e ti m e s w ith p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l, inq u ir ing w h en the d isc o v e ry re q u ests w o u ld b e c o m p let ed
. A ll o f th ese inq u ir ies w ere 7 ig n o re d b y p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l. ¶2 2. W e al s o m ay c on s i de rw het hert he pl ai nt i f f s ’ act i vi t y w as r eac t i onar y t o t he def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di sm i ss , orw hetherthe ac t i vi ty w as an ef f or tt o pr ocee d i n t he litig a tio n . H

il l m an , 14 So. 3d at727 ( ci t i ng H il l v. R am s ey , 3 S o . 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 )). Pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el f

i r s tatt empt ed di s covery i n thi s cas e w hen i tsent a l ett ert o couns el f or th e d e fe n d a n ts re q u e stin g to tak e the d e p o sitio n o f D r. B e n e fie ld o n M a y 5 , 2 0 0 8 . W h ile th is att em p t w as m ad e p ri o r t o the d efe n d an ts’ fi li n g their m o ti o n to d ism iss, w e c an n o t i g n o re th a t co u n se l fo r th e p lain tiffs d id n o t re sp o n d to th e d e fe n d a n ts’ in ter ro g a to rie s a n d th e ir th re e su b se q u e n t fo llo w u p in q u ire s u n til th irtee n d a y s a fte r th e d e fe n d a n ts h a d filed th e ir
m o tio n to d is m is s a n d 4 3 5 d a y s p a s t t h e d e a d lin e s e t b y o u r R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . See M iss. R
. C iv. P. 33 (b)(3 ). ¶2 3. T hi s Cour ta l s o ha s r e c og ni z e d tha ta d e f e nd a nt ’ s ow n di l at or y conductm ay be
c o n s id e re d w h e n d is m is s in g a n a c tio n . Salt s v. G ul f N at ’l L i f e I ns. Co. , 872 So. 2d 667, 670 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng P alm erv. B iloxiR eg’l Med. Ctr. , I

nc. , 56 4 S o. 2d 13 46 , 13 70 (M i ss.

### 11

19 90 ). In t od ay’s case, there has been no show i ng of di l at ory con du ctby the d efendan t s. T h e d e fe n d a n ts tim e ly filed th e ir a n sw e r a n d d e fe n se s to th e p lain tiffs’ c o m p lain t. ¶24. W e al s o not e thatpl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el fai l ed t o m ov e f ora cont i nuance t o al l ow f or addi t i onal t i m e t o com pl et e t he def endant s ’ di s covery re ques t s . I n Mis s is s i pp iD e pa r t m e nt of Hum an Serv i ces v. Hel ton , 741 So. 2d 240, 243 ( M i s s . 1999 ), p l ai nti f f’ s couns el had
r eques t ed a numberof

cont i nuance s , w hi ch def endant ’ s couns el cl ai m ed had caus ed a de l ay i n the ca s e w arrant i ng a R ul e 41( b) di s m i s s al
. T hi s C our tf ound that“[ t ] her e i s nothi ng cont empt uous orcontum aci ous aboutr equ est i ng cont i nuance s . ” I d . I n the pr es entcas e, p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l m a d e n o a ttem p t to m o v e fo r a c o n tin u a n c e to a llo w fo r m o re tim e to
an s w e rthe de f

e nd a nt s ’ di s c ov e r y r e qu e s t s . Rathe r , he i gn or e d the de f e nd a nt s ’ r e pe a t ed
r eques t s t o ans w eri nt err ogat or i es and al l ow ed the ca s e t o l angui s h on the docke tw i thoutany
ac ti v ity for m o re tha n a y ea r. ¶25. T hi s cas e show s a cl earre cor d of de l ay bas ed on the s how i ng of i nexcus abl e del ay. W hen t here i s a c l earr ecor d of del ay, no s how i ng of

contum aci ous conducti s nece s s ary. H ine v. A n ch o r L a k e P ro p . O w n ers A ss’n , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 5 (M iss. C t. A p p . 20 0 5 ). T he pla i nt i f

f s del ayed i n ans w er i ng the def endant s ’ i nt err ogat or i es f or435 days
. T he pl ai nt i f f s al s o di d notserve di s covery re ques t s upon the def endant s w i thi n the t i m e l i m i ts et b y U n ifo rm R u le o f C iv il an d C o u n ty C o u rt P ra c tice 4 .0 4 (A ), an d the p lain tiffs w e re late in
re sp o n d in g to th e d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss . T h u s, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w a s c o rre c t in hol di ng thatthe tr i al c our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng thata cl earr ecor d of del ay exi s t ed i n t he pr es entcas e.

### 12

B
. A dd i t i on al C on si derati on s of P rej ud i ce an d A gg ravati ngFactors ¶26. W hi l e the C our t of A ppeal s ’ f i ndi ng of del ay i s corr ect , w e r es pect f ul l y f i nd thatt he
co urte rr e d w he n i tc on t i nu e d i n i t s a na l ys i s a nd f ou nd tha tthe d e f

e nd a nt s w er e not pr ej udi ced by the del ay and t hatt he abs ence of an a ggr avat i ng f act orw arr ant s r ever s al of t he tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. Holder , 2010 W L 11267, at**6- 7, ¶¶38- 41. A ft er f i nd i ng t hatan
a g g ra v a tin g fa c to r is n o t p re se n t in to d a y ’s c a se , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d th a t: W hen thi s f

acti s t aken i nt o c ons i der at i on t ogetherw i th the f actthatther e i s no cl earr ecor d of

actual pr ej udi ce c aus ed t o t he def endant , oreven thatof p re su m p tiv e p re

ju d ice , w e fin d th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in its d e c isio n to di s m i s s the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ cas e w i th pr ej udi ce. Holder , 2010 W L 11267, at*7, ¶41. ¶27. T he tr i al cour tm ay cons i derpr ej udi ce orthe pr es ence of an aggr avat i ng f

act or , and thes e cons i der at i ons m ay hel p t o bol s t erors tr eng t hen a def endant ’ s cas e i n s uppor tof d ism iss a l. T h e s e c o n s id e ra tio n s, h o w e v e r, ar e n o t a p re re q u isite to d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 4 1 (b ). T h e sta n d a rd is “ w h e th e r t h e re is d e la y o r c o n tu m a c io u s c o n d u c t b y th e p la in tif f. . .

. ” Cox , 976 So. 2d at875 ( ci t i ng A m . T e l. & T e l. , 720 So. 2d at181)
. B eca us e “[ d] el ay al one may suf

f i ce” f ora di s m i s s al p urs uantt o R ul e 41( b) , w e di s agr ee w i th the C our tof Ap p e a l s ’ h o l d i n g th a tth e a b s e n c e o f b o th a n a g g r a v a t i n g f

a c t o ra n d p r e

j u d i c e - - wh i c h we fi nd i s pres ent i n today’s case – w arr ants rever sal of t he tri al co urt ’s judgm ent. W e dis cuss
e a c h s e p a r a t e l y b e l o w.

1. Pr ej udi ce

### 13

¶2 8. A ctual pr ej udi ce i s nota r equi r emen tf ord i s mi s s a l u nd e rRul e 41( b) , how ever p re ju d ic e m a y b e p re s u m e d fr o m u n re a s o n a b le d e la y . Cox , 976 So. 2d at876- 79. ¶29. T he C our t of A ppeal s f ound that no pr es um pt i ve pr ej udi ce exi s t ed i n thi s c as e. T he iss u e o f w h e th e r a c tu a l p re ju d ice d id e x ist in th is c a se is o f n o m o m e n t, b e c a u se th e re su lt
w oul d be the s ame. T he ca s e had be en s t al e f orm or e than a ye ar , and t he pl ai nt i f f s had f ai l ed t o m eetm ul t i pl e di s covery and pr ocedur al deadl i nes . T hi s di l at ory conductr es ul t ed i n an
u n re a so n a b le d e lay , an d w e h a v e h e ld th a t “p re ju d ice m a y b e p re su m e d fro m u n re a so n a b le del ay. ” I

d . at879 ( ci t i ng R og ers , 6 6 9 F
. 2 d at 32 2 ). ¶ 3 0
. A c tu a l p re

ju d ice m a y a rise w h e n , b e c a u se o f th e d e lay , w itn e ss e s b e c o m e u n av ail ab le
o r t h e m e m o ri e s o f w itn e s s e s fa d e . I d . a t 8 7 7 -7 9 . T h e d e fe n d a n ts a g re e th a t “ [i] t is compl et el y r eas onabl e t o expec tw i tnes s es t o have no i ndepende ntr ecol l ect i on overt hr ee year s af t erthe O ct ober2004 pat i enti nt er act i on and car e. ” H ow ever , t he def endant s f ai l ed to p rese n t evid en ce sh o w ing that an y o f th e w itn esse s co u ld n o t r ec all the e v en ts. D e sp ite the def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o pr es ente vi dence of w i tnes s es ’ f

adi ng m emori es , w e f

i nd thatt he del ay al one m ay r es ul ti n pr es um ed pr ej udi ce t o the def endant
. T hi s pr esum ed p re j udi ce str en g then s the d efe n d an ts’ ca se fo r dism issal un d er R u le 41 (b).

2
. A g g rav ati n g F ac tors ¶31
. T he p res ence o f an agg ravat i ng f act or m ay serve to “bo l st er” orstrengt hen the case fo r a d is m is s a l, b u t is n o t a re q u ir e m e n t. A m . T e l. & T e l. , 7 20 S o. 2 d at181. T he
a g g ra v a tin g fa c to rs in c lu d e : (1 ) th e e x ten t to w h ich th e p lain tiff, a s d is tin g u ish e d fro m h is
couns el , w as per s onal l y r es pons i bl e f orthe del ay; ( 2) the degr ee of actual pr ej udi ce t o t he

### 14

d e fe n d a n t; a n d (3 ) w h e th e r t h e d e la y w a s th e r e s u lt o f i n te n tio n a l c o n d u c t. Cox, 976 So. 2d at876 ( ci t i ng A m . T

e l. & T e l. , 7 2 0 S o . 2 d a t 18 1 ). W e d o n o t f ind an y ag g rav ati n g fac tors i n thi s cas e. C
. Les s erSanct i ons ¶32. Fi nal l y, i n det erm i ni ng w hether the tr i al court abus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen di s m i s s i ng
a ca s e pur s uantt o R ul e 41( b) , w e m us tconsi derw hetherl es s ers anct i ons w oul d bett ers erve th e in te re s ts o f

j u s tic e . A m . T

e l. & T e l. , 720 So. 2d at181. L es s ers anct i ons m ay i ncl ude “‘f i nes, cost s, or dam ages ag ai nstplai nti ff or hi s coun sel, a tt orney d i sci pli nary m easures, condi t i onal di s m i s s al , di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce, and expl i ci tw arni ngs . ’ ” I d . ( quot i ng W al lace , 572 So. 2d at377)
. I n the pr es entcas e, the tr i al j udge as ked pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el
w h at sa n cti o n s w o u ld b e a p p rop ri ate. C o u n sel reco g n ized that itis w ith in the tr ial co u rt ’s d isc re tio n to d e ter m in e a n a p p ro p ria te s a n c tio n , b u t state d tha t he tho u g h t a w a rn in g w o u ld be appr opr i at e. T he tr i al j udge r espon ded by sayi ng: “W hat ’ s the purpos e of a w arni ng? E v e ry b o d y is s u p p o se d to k n o w th e r u le s .” B a se d o n th is e x c h a n g e , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt c o n s id e re d le s s e r s a n c tio n s in h is h o ld in g . Holder , 2010 W L 11267 at*5- 6, ¶¶29- 36. W e agr ee. ¶33. W e now m us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe t ri al cour tw as corr ecti n f i ndi ng that l es s er
s a n c tio n s w o u ld n o t s u ff ic e . A m . T

e l. & T e l. , 720 So. 2d at181. Pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el f

ai l ed t o m eetthr ee deadl i nes s etby ourR ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and U ni f or m R ul es of

C i r cui tand C ounty C our tPr act i ce. T he pl ai nti f f s w er e more than a ye arl at e i n ans w er i ng t he d e fe n d a n ts’ in ter ro g a to rie s a n d b e g in n in g th e ir d isc o v e ry , an d w e re tw o m o n th s la te in

### 15

r epl yi ng t o t he def

endants ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s . W e al s o m us tcons i derthatdef ens e couns el
a ttem p ted to c o n tac t p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l th re e tim e s w ith re g a rd to th e late re sp o n se to in ter ro g a to rie s. T o d a y ’s c a se is n o t an iso late d in c id e n t o f o n e m iss e d d e a d lin e o r a sh o rt, d e lay e d re sp o n se . In lig h t o f th e m u lti p le, e x ten d e d d e lay s, w e fin d th a t le ss e r sa n c tio n s in the p res ent cas e w ou l d no ts erve the int eres t s of j ust i ce. T hu s, the tr i al j ud ge d i d n ot abuse h is discreti o n in d ism issi n g this case u n d er M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 4 1 (b). CO NC L US I ON ¶34. T hi s C our tm ay uphol d a R ul e 41( b) di sm i ssal w hen ther e h as been a s how i ng of

“ d e lay o r co n tu m a c io u s c o n d u c t” b y the p lain tiff a n d a fin d in g th a t les se r sa n c tio n s w o u ld
n o t su ffic e . D e lay a lo n e is s u ffic ien t to w a rra n t a d ism iss a l; th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls e rre d in
r ever s i ng the tr i al courtbas ed on the abs ence of a n aggr avat i ng f

act orpr es enti n t oday’ s cas e. A ggr avat i ng f

act or s m ay be c ons i der ed by the tr i al courtw hen det erm i ni ng w hether di s m i s s al i s an appropri at e s anct i on, butthey ar e notr equi r ement s ; del ay al one may be
su ffic ien t to w a rra n t a d ism iss a l. P re ju d ice m a y b e p re su m e d fro m th is d e lay . F in a lly , in l i ghtof the di l at ory conductpr es enti n thi s cas e, l es s ers anct i ons w oul d notbett ers erve the i nt er es t s of

j us t i ce. T hus , f

orthe r eas ons di s cus s ed t oday, w e f i nd no abus e of

di s cr et i on on the p art o f the tr ial jud g e in d ism issi n g this case u n d er M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 41( b)
. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e t he C our tof A ppeal s and re i ns t at e and a f f i r m the j udgm ent
o f th e trial c o u rt d ism iss in g th e c a se w ith p re ju d ice a s to e a c h d e fe n d a n t. ¶ 3 5
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF TH E COU RT OF AP P E A L S I S R E V E R S E D . T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE H ARR I S ON CO UNTY C I RCU I T COU RT I S REI NST ATED AND AF F I RM ED .

### See Stut tsv. Mil ler , 37 So. 3d 1, 7 (Mis s. 2009) (Pie rc e, J., conc urring) (c iting Rains 8 

### v. Gardner , 731 So. 2d 1192, 1197- 98 (Mi ss . 1999) ). Stu tts , 37 So. 3d at

7. 9 

### Jen kin s v. Osw ald, 3 So. 3d 746, 750- 51 (Mi ss . 2010)
. 10 

### Stu tts , 37 So. 3d at

7 (Pi erce , J ., conc urring) (c iting Jenki ns , 3. So. 3d at 751)
. 11 

### 16 WA LL ER, C. J. , DI CKI NS ON , RAND OL PHAN D L AMAR, JJ . , CO NC UR . PIERCE, J., SPECIALLY CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPI NION JO I NE D B Y WAL LE R, C. J. , AN D L AMAR, J. CA RL SO N, P. J. , DI CKI NS ONAN D RAND OL PH , JJ . , JO I N I N P AR T
. KI TCHENS, J., DI SSENTS WI TH SEPARATE WRITT EN OP INIO N J OIN ED BYGRAV ES , P.J ., AN D C HA ND LE R, J . P I E RC E , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶3 6
. I co n cu r w ith the M ajo rity ’s d ec isi o n to affirm the tri al c o u rt ’s d ism issal for fail u re t o prosecute. I w r i t e s epar at el y, how ever , t o emphasi ze our“def er ent i al r evi ew ” of

t r i al
court s i n s uch mat t er s as thes e. 8 ¶37. I n Stutt

s v. Mil ler , w e a ffirm e d a g ra n t o f d ism iss a l fo r fa ilu re to se rv e p ro c e ss w ith in the t i m e pr es cr i bed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 4( h)
. E ar l i er , i n Jenkins v. 9 O sw a ld , w e af

f i r m ed the den i al of

a gr antof

di s m i s s al w her e a pl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o s erve pr oces s f orm or e than f

ouryear s . I n both cas es , I c oncurr ed s peci al l y, s ayi ng “[ i ] tcannot

10 b e o v erstated that o u r tri al co u rt s a re e n ti tl ed to ‘de feren ti al rev iew ’ i n m att ers tha t r eq u ir e
a d is c re tio n a ry ru lin g .” 11 ¶38. W hi l e di s m i s s al f orf ai l i ng t o serve pr oces s and di s m i s s al forf ai l i ng t o pr os ecut e, the iss u e h e re , are d iffe re n t m a tters , the y b o th a re in th e d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt. A s in

### Jenki ns , 3. So. 3d at 751. 12 

### 17 Je nkins , I ad m itthat I ha v e so m e d isco m fort w ith the d ec isi o n o f the tr ial co u rt . H o w ev er, 12 in a g re e m e n t or d isa g re e m e n t, o u r le v e l o f d e fe re n c e re m a in s u n c h a n g e d . T h e re c o rd re fle c ts th a t th e trial c o u rt a d e q u a tely m a d e fin d in g s o f fa c t an d so c a m e to a d e c isio n th a t is sq u a re ly
w ith in o u r p re c e d e n t. I y ie ld to th a t ru lin g . W A L L E R , C .J ., A N D L A M A R , J ., J O I N T H I S O P I N I O N . C A R L S O N , P .J ., DI CK I NSON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , J OI N THI S OPI NI ON I N PART. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶39. B eca us e l es s ersanc t i ons w oul d bet t erserve t he i nt er es t s of j us t i ce, and bec aus e the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a c c u ra tely a n a ly z e d th e law a n d re a c h e d th e c o rre c t re su lt, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶40. T he C our t of A ppeal s r ever s ed t he t r i al court ’ s di s m i s s al because , i n i t s vi ew – and in m in e –le s s e r s a n c tio n s w e re w a rr a n te d u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Holderv. O r ange G r ove Me d . S p e c ia ltie s, P. A. , 2010 W L 11267, a t¶¶37- 38, 42 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J an. 5, 2010) ( ci t i ng Cox v. Cox , 976 So. 2d 869, 879 ( M i s s . 2008) )
. Speci f i cal l y, the C our tof

A ppeal s hel d: A ccor di ng t o ours upr eme cour t , l es sers anct i ons w i l l nots uf f i ce w her e they c a n n o t cu re p re

ju d ic e su ffe re d b y a d e fe n d a n t fro m a p lain tiff’s d e lay in p ro s e c u tin g h is o r h e r c a s e .

. . . . T h u s, w e a re lef

t so lely w ith the q u e stio n o f w h e th e r th e p re ju d ice p re su m a b ly su ffe re d b y th e d e fe n d a n ts a s a re su lt o f th e p lain tiffs’ in e x c u sa b le d e lay in th is m att er , i n and of

i t s el f , outw ei ghs the l aw ’ s pr ef er ence fora dec i s i on on the m er i t s . B as ed on the att endantci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, w e f

i nd thati tdoes n o t.

### 18

I d. at¶ ¶ 38- 39 ( ci t i ng Cox , 9 7 6 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 6 , 8 7 9 ). ¶41. “D i s m i s s al s w i th pr ej udi ce a r e r eser ved for t he m ostegr egi ous cas es . ” H il l m an v. W e a th e rly , 14 So. 3d 721, 726 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng W al lace v. Jones , 572 So. 2d 371, 376 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). T h ese ex tr ao rdin ary circu m stan ce s u su all y requ ir e the pres en ce of p lai n ti ff
c u lp a b ility , a c tu a l p re

ju d ic e t o th e d e fe n d a n t, a n d in te n tio n a l d ila to ry c o n d u c t. A T & T v. D ay s I nn , 720 So. 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h is si m p ly is no t th at so rt of cas e. ¶42. T he tr i al j udge’ s cons i der at i on of l es s er s anct i ons cons i s t ed of an abrupt di s m i s s al of the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ att orney’ s pl ea f

ora w arni ng: “ W hat ’ s the purpos es of a w arni ng? Ever ybody i s s uppos ed t o know the rul es . ” Consi der at i on of l es s ers anct i ons s houl d c ons i s tof m or e than
a p a ss in g , d ism iss iv e re fe re n c e to a sin g le o p tio n . In ste a d , the trial ju d g e c a re fu lly sh o u ld
w ei gh al l viabl e al t ernat i ves, w hich i nclude, i n ad dit i on t o ex p li ci tw arni ng s, “fi nes, cost s,
orda m ages a gai ns tthe pl ai nt i f f orhi s couns el , att orney di s ci pl i nary m eas ur es , condi t i onal di s m i s s al , [ and] di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce. ” I d. ( quot i ng W

al lace , 5 7 2 S o . 2 d at 37 7 )). ¶43. T o s uppor ti t s holdi ng , the m aj ori t y fi nd s, w i t ho ut explanat i on, thatther e w as pr es um ed pr ej udi ce a nd that“[ t ] hi s pr es um ed pr ej udi ce s tr engthens the def endant s ’ cas e f

or di s m i s s al underR ul e 41( b)
. ” M aj
. O p. at¶30. W hi l e I agr ee thata si gn i f i cantdel ay may gener at e a pr es um pt i on of prej udi ce, ther e i s no author i ty t o s uppor ta conc l us i on t hat pr ej udice shou l d be pre s um ed i n the pr es entcas e. T he maj or i ty r el i es on Cox , 976 So. 2d at879, f ors uppor t , butthe del ay i n thatc as e w as f our t een ye ar s , a f

arcry f r om the 435- day d e la y h e re . See al

s o Jenkins v. Tucker , 18 So. 3d 265, 271 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) ( f i ve- year

### 19

hi s t ory o f

de l a y a mount e d t o p r e s umed pr e j ud i c e )
. M or e ov e r , e ve n i f s uc h a pr e s um pt i on exi s t ed, i tw as r ebutt ed w hen the pl ai nt i f f s dem ons tr at ed t hatt her e w as no actual pr ej udi ce to t h e d e f

e n d a n ts . See B e c k w ith v. S ta te , 707 So. 2d 547, 567- 68 ( M i s s . 1997) ( al though pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al , tw enty- s i x- yearde l ay i n pur s ui ng cr i m i nal cas e di d notw arr ant di s m i s s al of

i ndi ctm entw her e def

endantcoul d notdemonstr at e ac tual pr ej udi ce)
. T he defend ants here argued that dis m i ssal w i th prej ud i ce w as pr op er becau se the p lai nti ff s’ f ai l ur e t o r es pond t o i nt err ogat or i es l eftthem w i thoutknow l edge of the nur s e’ s i dent i ty. H ow ever , the pl ai nt i f

f s count er ed, and t he t r i al j udge agr eed, t hatt he def endant s s houl d have b e e n a b le to d e ter m in e th e n u rs e ’s id e n tity b a se d o n th e fa c ts a lleg e d in th e c o m p lain t. T her ef or e, de s pi t e the m aj or i ty’ s hol di ng t o the contr ary, the abs ence of actual pr ej udi ce doe s h a v e a b e a ri n g o n th e o u tc o m e o f th e c a s e . See A T & T, 7 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 8 1 (a c tu a l p re ju d ice is
an ag g rav ati n g fac tor th at m ay justi fy th e h arsh est san cti o n o f dism issal w ith p rejud ice). ¶44. “[ N ] egl i gence ori nexcus abl e conduc ton the partof the pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el does not i n i t s el f j us t i f y di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce. ” I d. at182 (c i t i ng R ogers v. K r ogerCo. , 669 F. 2d 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 -2 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); McG ow an v. Faul knerConcr ete Pi

pe Co. , 659 F
. 2d 554, 558 ( 5th C i r . 1981) )
. By af f i r m i ng the tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s the ca s e w i th pr ej udi ce bas ed s ol el y on the pl ai nt i f f s ’ a t t orney’ s c onduct , t oday’ s opi ni on s tr i kes a bl ow agai ns tt he la w ’s p re fe re n c e th a t c a s e s b e d e c id e d o n th e irm e ri ts . I d. at180 ( ci t i ng W

ats on v. L il

lard , 493 So. 2d 1277, 1278 ( M i s s . 1986) )
. I tal s o puni s hes the pl ai nt i f f s , w ho have be en depr i ved of thei rday i n courtthr ough no f aul tof thei row n. Forthe s e r eas ons , I w oul d af f i r m t he

### 20

C our tof A ppeal s ’ r ever s al of

t he di s m i s s al and i t s r emand of the cas e f

orcons i der at i on of les se r sa n c tio n s. A c c o rd in g ly , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. GRAVE S , P . J . , AND CHAN DL ER , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.