I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CA- 0 1 2 9 7 - S CT DA VI D M ICH AEL ASH

M OR E AN

D D EBR A L. AS HM ORE
v. M I S S I S S I PP I AUTHORI TY ON EDUCATI ONAL T EL E V ISIO N d/b/ a M ISS ISS IP P I P U B L IC BROAD CASTI

NG ( SUED AS S

EPARA TE EN TI TI ES) AN D TH E STATE O F M

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 09/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. W I LL I AM A. GOW AN, J R. TRI AL C OU RT A TTOR NEY S: SETH C. LI TTLE J E F F E RY P . RE YNOL DS CA RS ON T HUR M AN RY AN NE SA UC I ER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : THOM AS A. W ALL ER BARRY W
. GI LM ER AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : CA RS ON H. T HUR M AN J EFFER Y P. RE Y N O LD S NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 14/ 2014 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. RAN DO LPH, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. In th is p e rso n a l-in ju ry c a se , th e tr ial co u rtd ism issed the A sh m o res’ claim s w ith p r e j u d i c e f o rwi l l f u l d i s c o v e ry v i o l a t i o n s . F i n d i n g n o a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , we a f

f i r m. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY

### During disc over y, thetri alcourt

grante d theMis si ss ippiStateBoard of Educ ation’ s 1 

### motion f or s ummaryju dg ment, dis mi ss ing i t f rom theca se , l eaving a s the de fe ndant s the Mis si ss ippiAuthorit

y on Educati onalTelevi si on and theStateof Mi ss is sippi ( “Mi ss is sippi Def endants ”)
. 2 ¶2. D avi d A s hm or e and hi s w i f e D ebr a A s hm or e sue d fori nj ur i es t hey al l eged r es ul t ed f r om a mot or - vehi cl e ac ci dentw i th a vehi cl e dr i ven by an e m pl oyee of the M i s s i s s i ppi A ut hor i ty o n Edu c a t i on a l Tel e vi s i on . D a vi d s ou gh tda mage s f orpe r s on a l i nj ur i e s tha the al l egedl y s uf

f ere d t o hi s r i ghtand l ef tknees , back, neck, and upperarm s . D ebr a s ought damages forl os s of

D avi d’ s s ervi ces , compani ons hi p, and cons or t i um ; r ender i ng of nur s i ng
car e and s ervi ces t o D avi d; emot i onal di s tr es s ; and l os s of enj oym entof

l i f e. ¶ 3
. Af

t e rth e As h mo r e s f

i l e d t h e i rc o mp l a i n t , t h e p a r t i e s e n g a g e d i n d i s c o v e ry . T wo 1 year s af t erthe A s hm or es f

i l ed s ui t , the M i s s i s s i ppi D ef endant s f i l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s as a Sanct i on f

orthe Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ R epea t ed Fal s e Sw orn T es t i m on y. In the mot i on, the M issi ssipp i D efe n d an ts argu ed b efo re th e tri al co u rtthat the A sh m o res p rov ided a “ p att ern of f al s e t es t i m ony” that“ s tr [ uck] t o the cor e of the m at er i al i s s ues i n thi s l aw s ui t ” r egar di ng: ( 1) D avi d’ s m edi cal hi s t ory – i ncl udi ng kne e s ur ger i es , a ba ck i nj ury, a nd a l ef t - l eg i nj ury; ( 2) the bas es of

D avi d’ s di s abi l i ty; a nd ( 3) w hetherD ebr a s oughts i m i l ar“nur s i ng car e and
serv ices” d am a g e s in a sep ara te nu rsi n g -ho m e-n eg li g en ce su itinv o lving h er fathe r. In
r e s po ns e , the A s hmor e s a r gu e d tha tany i ncons i s t enci es betw een D avi d’ s m edi cal hi s t ory and the i nt err ogat ory r es pons es w er e r es ol ved by the A s hm or es ’ depos i t i on t es t i m ony. ¶4
. A hear i ng fort he m ot i on w as hel d on J un e 8, 20 12
. A t t orne ys f orbo th s i des pr es ent ed ar gum entatthe hea r i ng, w i thoutaf f i davi t s ort es t i m ony f

r om the A s hm or es . T he

### Th e answ ers to th e interro gato ries are as follo ws: 2 A N SW E R T O I N T E R R O G A T O R Y N O . 16: Pl ai nt i f f w oul d s t at e thathe h a s n o t p re v io u sly re c e iv e d a n y in ju rie s p rio r to th e s u b

jec t m o to r v e h icle acc i dentw hi ch af

f ect ed the s ame par torpart s of hi s body as the i nj ur i es w hi ch w er e i ncurr ed as a r es ul tof the s ubj ectm ot orvehi cl e acci den t . T hi s ans w er m a y b e s u p p le m e n te d
. SU P P L E M E N T A L A N SW E R T O IN T E R R O G A T O R Y N O . 16: P lai n ti ff h a s n o t p re v io u sly re c e iv e d a n y in ju ri e s p rio r to th e su b

jec t m o to r v e h icle acc i dentw hi ch af

f ect ed the sa m e partor part s of hi s body as t he i nj ur i es w hi ch w e re in c u rre d a s a re su lt o f th e su b jec t m o to r v e h icle a c c id e n t. S E CO ND S UP P L E M E NT AL AN S W E R T O I NT E RR OGA T OR Y N O. 16: Pl ai nt i f

f w oul d s t at e thati n the f i ve ( 5) year s pri or t o the s ubj ectm ot or vehi cl e ac ci dent , Pl ai nt i f f had bee n di agnos ed w i th: [ c] or onary heartdi s eas e,

. . . [an d ] [k ]i d n e y sto n e s. S in c e the d a te o f th e su b jec t m o to r v e h icle a c c id e n t, P lain tiff h a s n o t su ffe re d fro m a n y m a jo r illne ss , d is e a s e , o r m e n tal h e a lth c o n d itio n . 

### 3 M i s s i s s i ppi D ef

endant s subm i t t ed thatD avi d’ s i nt err ogat ory r es pons es om i t t ed mat er i al det ai l s of D avi d’ s m edi cal hi s t ory. Speci f i cal l y, t he M i s s i s s i ppi D ef endant s poi nt ed outthat D av id h ad fail ed to d iscl o se a p rev iou s b ac k injury , p rev iou s su rge ri es to h is r igh t and left knees , and an i nj ury t o D avi d’ s l ef tl eg thatoccurr ed af

t ert he m ot or - vehi cl e acc i dent
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi D ef

endant s s ubm i t t ed the f ol l ow i ng i nt err ogat or i es and r es pon ses t o the tr i al
c o u rt: I N T E R R O G A T O R Y N O . 16: Pl eas e st at e w hetheryou s us t ai ned a pe r s onal i nj ury, had any a cci dent s , ors uf f er ed f r om any s er i ous i l l nes s , di s eas es , or m ental health d i sorder s pr i orors ubs equent t o the i nci denti n ques t i on. ( E mp h a s i s a d d e d
. ) Da v i d r e s p o n d e d t o th e i n t e rr o g a t o ry th r e e t i me s . T h e f i r s tt wo 2
re sp o n se s liste d n o p re v io u s o r su b se q u e n t in ju rie s to th e a re a s o f th e b o d y to w h ich D a v id
c laim e d in

ju rie s in th e p re se n t ca se ; an d th e se c o n d su p p lem e n tal re sp o n se sta ted th a t D a v id

### 4

had hea r ts ur gery and ki dney s t one s ur gery pr i ort o the ac ci dent , butmade no m ent i on of any pr evi ous back orl eg i nj ur i es ors ubs equentl eg i nj ur i es . D ur i ng D avi d’ s depos i t i on, the M iss iss ip p i D e fe n d a n ts q u e stio n e d D a v id a b o u t e a c h o f th e se item s. D a v id a d m itt e d to pr evi ous back i nj ur i es , havi ng s ur gery on h i s ri gh tk nee, and i nj ur i ng hi s l ef tl eg ap p rox im ately o n e m o n th after the a cc iden t. B u t D av id co n sist en tl y d en ied h av ing su rge ry
o n h is le ft k n e e p rio r to th e a c c id e n t. ¶5. T he M i ssi ssi pp i D efendan t s al so subm i t t ed thatt he A shm ores pr ovi ded fal se depos i t i on t es t i m ony r egar di ng the bas i s of D avi d’ s di s abi l i ty. D avi d and D ebr a both s t at ed i n thei rdepos i t i ons thatD avi d’ s di s abi l i ty w as s ol el y bas ed on i nj ur i es r es ul t i ng f r om the
m o to r-v e h icle a c c id e n t. B u t d u rin g th e d isc o v e ry p h a se , D a v id filed fo r S o c ial S e c u rity di s abi l i ty. T he Soci al Secur i ty appl i cat i on aske d w hati l l nes s es , i nj ur i es , and/ orcondi t i ons li m it ed D av id’s ab il ity to w o rk. D av id rep li ed that a n u m b er o f co n d it ion s, inclu d ing h ea rt p ro b le m s , d ia b e te s , h y p e rt e n s io n , a n d g o u t, lim ite d h is a b ility to w o rk , in tera lia
. The Soci al Secur i ty A dm i ni s tr at i on f ound thatD avi d w as di s abl ed; hi s expl anat i on of det erm i nati on sta ted “ [y ]ou sta te y o u a re d isa b led a n d u n a b le to w o rk b e c a u se o f m u lti p le [s ic] v e h icle in ju ri e s , h e a rt , d ia b e te s , h y p e rt e n s io n , g o u t.” ¶6. Fi nal l y, the M i s s i s s i ppi D ef endant s ar gued that D ebr a f ai l ed t o di s cl os e that s he w as
see k ing sim il ar d am ag es in an u n related n u rsi n g -ho m e-n eg li g en ce ca se in v o lving h er fathe r. T h e M issi ssipp i D efe n d an ts sub m itted th at D eb ra’s S ep tem b er 2 6 , 2 0 1 1 , interrog atory
r es pons e i n the n urs i ng- hom e- negl i gence cas e f ai l ed t o di s cl os e thatD ebr a w as s eeki ng

### Debra’ s inte rrogat ory and ans wer : 3 IN T E R R O G A T O R Y N O . 2 2 : H ave you, M s . A s hm or e, s uf f er ed or be en tr eat ed f or“ment al pai n, angui s h ( or) em oti onal di s tr es s , ” ora “l os s of e n jo y m e n t o f life ” p rio r to O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 7 o r d u e to an y m a tter u n re late d to M r . H ender s on’ s s t ay atM SV H ? I f s o, gi ve t he det ai l s of

s uch, the dat es of any vi s i t s t o m edi cal or ps ychol ogi cal pr of es s i onal s , and the name( s ) of w ho y o u s a w. A N S W E R T O IN T E R R O G A T O R Y N O . 2 2 : M s . A s hm or e has s uf f er ed m ent al pai n and angui s h, emot i onal di s tr es s and l os s of enj oym entof

l i f e due t o the i nj ur i es s uf

f er ed by Leonar d H ender s on as a r es ul tof the negl i gence of th e D e fe n d a n ts. M s. A sh m o re h a s n o t b e e n trea ted b y a d o c to r fo r m e n tal p a in and angui s h, emot i onal di s tr es s , orl os s of enj oym entof

l i f e. 

### Dav id’s attor

ney s tate d that t

he l ef t- kneesurger

y was there sult of

“a voll eyball 4 

### injury.” 5 damages f

orment al a nd e m ot i onal di s tr es s i n the pr es entc as e. I n a ddi t i on t o seeki ng 3 damages f

ornur s i ng s ervi ces r ender ed t o D avi d and herf ather , D ebr a s oughtdamages f or
m ent al and emot i onal di s tr es s i n both c as es . Y et , i n he rde pos i t i on i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the M iss iss ip p i D e fe n d a n ts a sk e d D e b ra if sh e w a s se e k in g d a m a g e s fo r h e r n u rsin g se rv ice s in th e n u rs in g -h o m e -n e g lig e n c e c a s e . D e b ra s ta te d th a t s h e w a s n o t. ¶7. I n a ddi t i on t o pr es ent i ng the evidence d i s cus s ed supra , th e M iss iss ip p i D e fe n d a n ts
su b m itt e d a m e d ica l re p o rt re v e a lin g th a t D a v id h a d le ft-k n e e s u rg e ry p rio r to th e a c c id e n t. A t th e h e a rin g , A sh m o re ’s a tto rn e y , in tera lia , ad m itt e d th a t D a v id h a d su rg e ry o n b o th kn ees, prom pti ng the co urtt o i nq uir e “how not dis cl osi ng . . . tw o k nee surgeri es, regar dles s

4
o f w h a t c a u s e d th e m , is n o t h id in g th e b a ll.”P ier ce v. Her itage Properties, I nc. , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). 5 Scoggins v. E l

l z ey Bever ages, I

nc. , 743 So. 2d 990, 997 ( M i s s . 1999) 

### . 6 

### 6 ¶8. O n Jul y 10, 2012, the tr i al court , ci t i ng Pi e r c e v. H e r itag e Pr oper ti es, I

nc. and 5 Scoggins v. E l

l z ey Beverages , ent er ed an or dergr ant i ng the M i ssi ssi pp i D ef endant s ’ m ot i on, 6 f i ndi ng thatthe A s hm or es ’ depos i t i on t es t i m ony cont ai ned “w i l f ul m i s r epr es ent at i ons , ” and f ur therf i ndi ng t hats uch mi s r epr es ent at i ons r epr es ent ed a “ del i ber at e att empt t o s ubvertthe ju d icia l p ro c e ss .” T h e A sh m o re s n o w a p p e a l, cla im in g th a t th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d is c re tio n in g ra n tin g th e M is s is s ip p i D e fe n d a n ts ’ M o tio n to D is m is s . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶9. T r i al court s ar e af f or ded br oad di s cr et i on i n di s covery mat t er s , a nd thi s Courtw i l l not
overturn a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on unl es s ther e i s an abus e of di s cr et i on: T he dec i si on t o i m pos e s anct i ons f ordi s covery abus e i s ves t ed i n the tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i on. T he pr ovi s i ons f ori m pos i ng s anct i ons ar e des i gned t o gi ve the courtgr eatl at i tude. T he pow ert o di s m i s s i s i nher enti n any cour tof l aw orequi ty, bei ng a means nece s s ary f oror der l y expedit i on of j us t i ce a nd the cou rt ’s contr ol of i t s ow n do cket. N evertheles s, the tri al courtshou l d d i sm i ss a cause o f act i on forfai l ure t o c o m p ly w i th d i scovery o nly und er the m ost extr em e ci rcum st ances. Such di s m i s s al s by the t r i al courtar e r evi ew ed underan abus e of di s cr et i on stan d ard . W h e n this C o u rtrev iew s a d ec isi o n that is w ith in the tr ial co u rt ’s d iscreti o n , itfi rsta sk s if the co u rtb elow a p p li ed the c o rrect l eg al st an d ard
. If the tr i al courtappl i ed the r i ghts t andar d, then thi s Courtc ons i der s w hetherthe deci s i on w as one of

s ever al r eas onabl e ones w hi ch coul d have be en made. P ier ce , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d at 13 8 8 (cit ati o n s o m itted). A N A L Y S IS

### 7

¶1 0. T hi s C our tem pow er ed t r i al cour t s w i t h t he di s c r e t i on a ry a utho r i ty t o s a nc t i on, in c lu d in g th e a u th o ri ty to d is m is s a n a c tio n , in tera lia
. M . R . C
. P. 37. I n P ier ce , w e appl i ed the f ol l ow i ng cons i der at i ons f ordet erm i ni ng w hethera tr i al courtabuse d i t s di s cr et i on under R ul e 37 by di s m i s s i ng w i th pr ej udi ce: F ir st, d ism issal i s au tho ri ze d o n ly w h en the fail u re t o co m p ly w ith the c o u rt ’s or derr es ul t s f

r om w i l f ul nes s orbad f

ai th, a nd notf

r om the i nabi l i ty t o compl y. D i s m i s s al i s pr operonl y i n s i tuat i on [ s i c] w her e the det err entval ue of R ul e 37 cannotbe s ubs t ant i al l y achi eved by the us e of l es s dr as t i c s anct i ons . A nother cons i der at i on i s w hetherthe otherparty’ s pr epar at i on f ortr i al w as s ubs t ant i al l y pr ej udi ced. Fi nal l y, di s m i s s al m ay be i nappr opr i at e w hen negl ect i s pl ai nl y attr i but abl e t o an att orney r atherthan a bl amel es s cl i ent , or w hen a p arty’s sim p le ne g lig e n ce is gro u n d ed in co n fusio n o r si n ce re m i sund ers t and i ng of the co urt ’s orders
. I d. at1389 ( quot i ng B at s on v. N eal Spelce Ass ocs . I

nc. , 76 5 F . 2d 51 1 , 5 1 4 (5 th C ir. 1985) )
. T hi s C our thas af f i r m ed the tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i onary autho r i ty t o di s m i s s gi ven
s im ila r e g re g io u s c o n d u c t b y a p a rt y , a s i n t h is c a s e . B eck v. Sapet , 937 So. 2d 945, 946 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); Alle n v. Nat ’l R. R. Pas s e ngerCor

p. , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 0 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ); Scoggins v. E l

l z ey Bever ages, I

nc. , 7 4 3 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); P ier ce , 688 S o. 2d 1385. T he C our tof A ppeal s f ol l ow ed ourrul i ngs i n Conklin v. B oyd G am ing Cor p. , 75 So. 3d 589, 595 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) , by aff i r m i ng di s m i s s al as a s anct i on due t o the tr i al
cou rt ’s fi nd i ng that the p l ai nti ff engag ed i n a r epeated course of condu ctof pr ov i ding fal se
ans w er s and f

ai l i ng t o di s cl os e r el evanti nf or m at i on. ¶11. I n s hor t , i f

the t ri al co urtap pli es t he “corr ectl egal s t andar d, ” w e mustaf f i r m the deci s i on, r egar dl es s o f w hatany one of us i ndi vi dual l y m i ghthave rul ed had w e bee n the j udge, unl es s ther e is a “def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thatthe courtbel ow comm i t t ed cl ear

### 8

err or . ” See City o

f J a c kso n v. R h a ly , 9 5 S o . 3 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 7 (M iss. 2 0 1 2 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted ). A lth o u g h rea so n ab le m ind s m igh t d if fer as t o th e d ispo sit ion , th ere i s no sup p o rti n th e re co rd thatthe tr i al courtf

ai l ed t o appl y the corr ectl egal s t andar d i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , f ori ndeed, the tr i al j udge ci t ed ourdeci s i ons i n P ier ce and Sc og gins as author i ty, di s pel l i ng any not i on of appl yi ng an i ncorr ects t andar d. T he tr i al j udge r el i ed upon the s t andar d as announce d by th is C o u rt. A b u se o f d isc re tio n is th e m o st d e fe re n tial sta n d a rd o f re v iew a p p e llate c o u rts
e m p lo y . See Fi tc h v. Vale ntine , 959 So. 2d 1012, 1022 ( M i s s . 2007) ( “thi s C our tappl i es the d e fe re n tial a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd o f re v iew ” ); see al so W hite v. T hom ps on , 822 So. 2 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 2 8 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (ab u se o f discre ti o n “is h igh ly d efe ren ti al”). ¶12. T he di s s entengage s i n a de no vo revi ew o f t he m at t ercons i der ed and of f er s new concl us i ons notm ade by the tr i al j udge. T he di s s entthen gr ant s zer o def er ence t o the tr i al
court . R atherthan ac t i ng w i th m eas ur ed r es tr ai nti n conduct i ng appel l at e r evi ew , the di s s ent put s on the r obe of

a t r i al j udge, s crut i ni zes the r ecor d, and dec l ar es thatthe tr i al courtf ai l ed t o c onducta c om pr ehens i ve hear i ng. T he di s s entr ew ei ghs the compet i ng cl ai m s , of f er i ng
r e l i e f f o rth e c l a i ma n t s , wh o e x h i b i t e d a c a t c h
- me - i f
- y o u - c a n me n t a l i ty f

o rmo r e th a n two year s , and f

i nal l y pr es ent s i t s ow n f i ndi ngs f orthe tr i al court ’ s edi f i cat i on. T her e i s no
r ef er ence t o “err or ” by the tr i al court , m uch l es s “cl earerr or ” oran “a rbi tr ary” dec i s i on. ¶13. A bus e of

di s cr et i on i s the mos tde f e r e nt i a l s t a ndar d of

r evi ew appel l at e court s empl oy. A f i nd i ng of

a bu s e of

di s c r e t i on a bs e nta de f i ni t e a nd f

i r m i de nt i f

i c a t i on of

c l e a rerr or vi ol at es t i m e- honor ed s t andar d- of
- r evi ew pr i nci pl es . B y super cedi ng the di s cr et i on tr i al
court s t r adi t i onal l y have been af f or ded, t he di s s entw oul d er ode the pr i nci pl e and r es cul ptthe

### 9

r es ul tt o anotherpe r m i s s i bl e opt i on, a n opt i on the di s s ent i ng a uthorw oul d have s el ect ed had h e b ee n the tr ial jud g e. S u ch a cti o n e v iscerates the p ri n ciples o f ap p ell ate rev iew a n d ren d ers “abus e of

di s cr et i on” a s t andar d of r evi ew i n name onl y. ¶14. R ul e 1 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l P rocedu re propos es that the purpos e of the rules is t o secu re a “just” d eterm ination
. T h e co m m en ts t o R u le 1 s tat e tha t “[ t] h e p ri m ary purpos e of

proce dur al rul es s houl d be t o “ pr om ot e the ends of

j us t i ce .” M .R .C .P . cm t. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I s n o t th e “ p u rp o s e o f ju s tic e . . . th e a s c e rt a in m e n t o f t h e tru th [? ]” H a y de n v. S ta te , 9 7 2 S o . 2 d 5 2 5 , 5 3 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) (R an d o lph , J. , sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g ). “Part i es , l i ke w i tnes s es , ar e r equi r ed t o s t at e the truth, the w hol e truth and nothi ng butthe truth i n ans w er i ng w r i t t en i nte rr ogat or i es . ” P ier ce , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d at 13 8 9 (cit ati o n o m itted). T ruth and j ust i ce com plem ent each other. C an true j ust i ce ever be acco rde d o n fals e t es t i m ony? W e thi nk not
. Shoul d vi ol at or s be r ew ar ded, oronl y have thei rhands s l apped, f orm a ki ng “ w i l l f

ul mi s r e pr e s e nt a t i on s , ” whi c h, i f n ote xp os e d, r e s ul ti n i l l
- go t t e n ga i n? R ule 37(e) no to nly em po w ers , b ut speci fi cal l y grant s tri al cou rt s the au tho ri ty to di sm i ss a
c a s e w ith p re

ju d ic e “ a s m a y b e ju s t.” ¶15. T he rul e- des i gnat ed tr i bunal , a tr i al court , f ound the A s hm or es ’ patt ern of l yi ng and
conce al m entt o be “w i l l f ul m i sr epr es ent at i ons ” and a “del i ber at e att empt t o s ubvertthe jud ici al pro c e ss.” A n y att em p t t o “su b v ert th e jud ici al pro ce ss” c u ts ag ains t th e v ery co re of “pr om ot [ i ng] the ends of j ust i ce” and t he “a s cert ai nm entof the truth, ” a goa l w hi ch gui des dis cov ery, the rul es of evi dence and pr ocedur e, and tr i al s . I f tr i al j udges l ack the

### 10

a u th o rity to th ro w d ish o n e st p a rties o u t o f c o u rt w h e n th e irlies a re e x p o se d , the n w e w ill
neverachi eve true j us t i ce. ¶16. “A n appel l at e court s houl d not f ei gn al l egi ance t o the rul e that a m att er i s w i thi n the trial c o u rt’s s o u n d d isc re tio n a n d th e n fin d a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n w h e n e v e r it d isa g re e s w ith the tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on. ” Fra zie r v . S ta te , 305 G a. A pp. 274, 280, 699 S. E . 2d 747, 752 ( G a. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) (M ik e ll, J., co n c u rrin g ). “S o u n d d isc re tio n im p o rts a d e c isio n b y r e fe re n c e to l egal l y val i d s t andar ds
. ” B e ll v. City o f B a y S t. L o u is , 4 6 7 S o . 2 d 6 5 7 , 6 6 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). O nl y “[ w ] her e a t r i al j udge i n det erm i ni ng a mat t ercomm i t t ed t o hi s s ound di s cr et i on m akes h is d e c isio n b y re fe re n c e to a n e rro n e o u s v iew o f th e la w , [d o e s] th is C o u rt [h a v e ] au th o rity t o t ake appr opr i at e corr ect i ve ac t i on on appea l
. ” I d. ¶ 1 7 . T h a t d i d n o t o c c u r i n th i s c a s e . “ [ T ] h e d e c i s i o n o f a tr i a l j u d g e wi l l s t a n d ‘ u n l e s s we concl ude thatthe di s cr et i on w as arbi tr ary and cl ear l y err oneous , amount i ng t o an abus e of di s cr et i on. ’ ” Missi

ssi pp iT ran sp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 863 So. 2d 31, 34 (M i ss. 2003) ( ci t i ng P u c k e tt v. S ta te , 737 So. 2d 322, 342 ( M i s s . 1999) )
. N othi ng i n the r ecor d hi nt s of
a n “ a rb itrar y ” o r “ c lea rly e rro n e o u s” d e c isio n . “T h e q u e stio n , o f c o u rse , is n o t w h e th e r th is C o u rt . . . w o u ld a s a n o rig in a l m a tte r h a v e d ism iss e d th e a c tio n ; itis w h e th e r th e [trial] [ c] our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s o doi ng. ” N at ’l Hockey L eague v. Metr o. Hockey Club, I nc. , 427 U
. S. 639, 642, 96 S. C t . 2778, 2780, 49 L
. E d. 2d 747 ( 1976)
. O ur revi ew h as be en descri bed as f

oll ow s: O uri nqui ry, the n i s no tw he the rthe c i r c ui tj ud ge rul e d c on tr a ry t o whatone o f u s m ig h t h a v e ru le d , n o twh e th e rh e wa s “r ig h t ” o r“ wr o n g ” i n o u rv i e w, butw hetherhe abus ed his dis cr et i on . A n d , u n les s th e trial c o u rt b a se d h isW ebst ers I I N ew C ollege D i ct i on ary 3 6 0 (20 0 1 ). 7 U n d e r R u le 3 7 , “ e v a s iv e o r in c o m p lete a n sw e r[s] [are ] t o b e tre a ted a s a fa ilu re to 8 an sw er.” M
. R . C
. P . 3 7 (a)(3). 

### 11 deci s i on on an err oneous vi ew of the l aw , w e ar e notauthor i zed t o r ever s e f or an ab use of di scr et i on un l ess w e fi nd i tw as arbitrary an d clear l y err on eou s. W e stb ro o kv. S ta te , 658 So. 2d 847, 851 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng Ho o ten v. S ta te , 492 So. 2d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶1 8. T he di s s entpos i t s t hat“the f a c t s o f t od a y’ s c a s e f

al l s om ew her e betw een t he
e gr e gi ou s a c t s c on t e mpl a t e d b y P i er ce and Sc og gins an d the s ing le, v ag u e d isco v ery
r es pons e i n W

ood [ e x re l W o o d v. B ilox i P u b lic S c h . D ist. , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 1 9 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 )].” ( D i s . O p. ¶40)
. W hen di d l yi ng undero at h l ose i t s egr egi ous natur e, def i ned as

“ o u tsta n d in g ly b a d : b lata n t.” S u c h r a tio n a liza tio n is n o t a s tan d a rd o f re v iew , n o r sh o u ld 7 i tbe a gui de t o ourdet erm i nat i on of a di s m i s s al underR ul e 37 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. ¶ 1 9
. U n d e r R u le 3 7 , o p tio n s a v a ila b le to e v e ry tr ial c o u rt fo r fa ilu re to c o o p e ra te in 8 di s covery span f

r om paymentof

r eas onabl e expe ns es and att orneys ’ f ees , t o or der i ng d e sig n a ted fa c ts to b e tak e n a s e sta b lish e d , to “ re fu sin g to a llo w th e d iso b e d ien t p a rty to
s uppor toroppos e des i gnat ed cl ai m s ordef ens es, ” to s tr i ki ng outpl eadi ngs , t o hol di ng a party i n cont empt of

court , t o di s m i s s i ng t he sui t . A l l ar e perm i s s i bl e, and al l ar e w i thi n the trial c o u rt’s d isc re tio n . T h e d iss e n t o p in e s th a t “th e tr ia l co u rt’s o rd e r d id n o t th o ro u g h ly ad d ress e ac h o f th e fo u r [P ier ce ] c o n s id e ra tio n s .” (D is . O p . ¶ 5 4 ). H o w e v e r, P ier ce does notI n Sc og gins , the tr i al courtf

ound thatthe al t ernat i ve s anct i on of paymentof

att orney 9 f ees w oul d caus e “s ever al pr obl ems. ” Sc og gins , 7 4 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 5 . F irst, th e p lain tiff w o u ld n o t b e in a p o s itio n to p a y th e fe e s w ith o u t a su b s ta n tia l ju d g m e n t a t tr ia l. I d. Second, any aw ar d attr i al w oul d r es ul ti n s ubs t ant i al i nj us t i ce be i ng done due t o Scogg i ns’s w i l l f ul m is re p re s e n ta tio n s d u ri n g d is c o v e ry . I d. 

### 12 re q u ir e tria l c o u rt s to a d d re s s e a c h c o n s id e ra tio n . P ier ce , 688 S o. 2d at1391 ( hol di ng that d ism iss a l w a s a p p ro p ria te w ith o u t a c o n sid e ra tio n o f p re ju d ice ); Sc og

gins , 743 So. 2d at997 ( “[ I ] n P ier ce w e s t at ed ther e i s no r equi r ementthatthe def endantbe s ubs t ant i al l y pr ej udi ced.

. . . ”). ¶20. T urni ng t o the f act s of the cas e s ub j udi ce , w e must“f i r s tas k[ ] i f

the court bel ow appl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d. ” R h a ly , 95 So. 3d at607. H e di d. T he f i r s tcons i der at i on is w h ethe r th e d isco v ery v iolati o n s w ere the re su lto f w il lf u lnes s o r ba d faith
. T h e tri al co u rt expl i ci t l y f

ound A s hm or e’ s i nt err ogat ory and depos i t i on res pons es t o be “w i l l f ul
m is re p re s e n ta tio n s ” a n d a “ d e lib e ra te a tte m p t to s u b v e rtth e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s .” ¶21. T he s econd cons i der at i on i s w hether the det err ent val ue of R ul e 37 m ay be ac hi eved by l es s ers anct i ons . I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the tr i al courtcons i der ed l es s ers anct i ons , an
o p tio n a v a ilab le to e v e ry trial c o u rt. In h is o rd e r, th e trial ju d g e sta ted “ [t] h e C o u rt is cogni zanc e [ s i c] of

the f actt he Supre m e C our thas m andat ed i ti m pos e the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve
san cti o n that w il l acc o m p li sh the p u rpo se fo r w h ich it i s o p p o sed
. ” T h e trial c o u rt

“ c o n s id e re d ” “ v ig o ro u s c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n ,” a n d th e a lte rn a tiv e s a n c ti o n s o f “ im p o s in g fe e s ,”
or“r educi ng t he ver di ct . ” T he t r i al cour tt hen ci t ed ourhol di ng i n Sc og gins and di s m i s s ed 9 the vi abi l i ty of

a ny l es s ers anct i ons , f

i ndi ng thatthey “cr eat e[ ] s ever al pr obl ems s uch as w hatI n Sc og gins , th is C o u rt re

jec ted a t lea st th re e o th e r le ss e r sa n c tio n s in a d d iti o n to 10 thos e l i s t ed i n R ul e 37, on the gr ounds that“a mer e f i ne, paymentof

att orney f

ees or l i m i t at i on of

r ecove ry” w ou l d notr emedy t he w i l l f ul vi ol at i ons and w oul d caus e “s ever al pr obl ems. ” Sc og

gins , 743 So. 2d at994. H al l v. Ci t y of Ri dg e land , 3 7 S o . 3 d 2 5 , 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). 11 

### 13 t o do i f the def ens e obt ai ns a ve r di cti n i t s f avor . ” The tr i al c our t ’ s c ons i der at i on and
r ej ect i on of

l es s ers anct i ons f

ol l ow s thi s C our t ’ s i ns truct i on i n Sc og gins . See a l

so P ier ce , 10 688 So. 2d at1391 (“ othersanc t i ons consi der ed by t he courtw oul d notachi eve the det err ent val ue of the di s m i s s al ”)
. T he tr i al court ’ s deci s i on w as notarbitra ry ( “notdone ac cor di ng t o r eas on orj udgm ent , butdependi ng on the w i l l a l one” ) , butr atherw as ba s ed on the l aw 11
w e es t abl i s hed. ¶ 2 2
. T h e th ird c o n sid e ra tio n is w h e th e r th e w ro n g e d p a rty h a s s u ffe re d p re ju d ice a s a re su lt of the di s covery vi ol at i on. H ow ever , “ther e i s no r equi r ementthatthe def endantbe
s ubs t ant i al l y pr ej udi ced by the abs ence of evi dence
. ” P i er ce , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 9 1 ; see al so A l len , 934 So. 2d at1013 ( “s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce i s notnece s s ary underthi s t es t ”)
. I n P ier ce , the C our tfound di s m i s s al “w hol l y appr opr i at e” w her e “ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the
r ecor d t o supportheradm i t t ed dec ept i on. ” P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1391. A l though pr ej udi ce need notbe sho w n, thi s C our thas r ecogni zed thats ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce oc cur s w hen di s c ov e ry v i ol a t i on s i mpos e on the op po s i ng pa r ty “ maj ori nc on ve ni e nc e i n t i me, at t or ney f ees and gene r al f

rus tr at i on. ” Sc og

gins , 743 So. 2d a t997. T he A s hm or es ’ patt ern of “w i l l f ul
m i s r epr es ent at i ons ” s panned mor e than tw o year s , caus i ng the M i s s i s s i ppi D ef endant s “maj or i nconveni ence i n t i m e, att orney f ees and gene r al f

rus tr at i on. ” See id.

### 14

¶23. T he f

our th f act or i s w hether the abus e i s attr i but abl e s ol el y t o tr i al couns el i ns t ead of a bl amel es s cl i ent . T he tr i al courtm ade no fi ndi ng thatthe A s hm or es ’ couns el had know l edge of

the f al s e and de cept i ve r es pons es , i
. e. , the “w i l l ful m i s r epr es ent at i ons , ” nor d o e s th e re c o rd s u g g e s t s a m e . In its o rd e r, th e trial c o u rt sp e c ifica lly fo u n d th a t b o th A sh m o re s h a d m a d e m isre p re se n tatio n s th ro u g h o u t dis c o v e ry ; th u s, w e a re n o t d e a lin g w ith

“ b la m e le s s c lie n ts .” ¶24. T he tr i al courtfoun d t hat D avid ha d l i ed by conce al i ng a r i ght
- knee s ur gery and d e g e n e ra tiv e jo in t d ise a se in h is r ig h t k n e e . T h e trial c o u rt fu rth e r fo u n d th a t D a v id “aff i rm at i vely st at ed” t hat he d i d n ot have a sub sequen tl eft -knee i njury o r degen erat i ve d i sc di s eas e i n hi s back, des pi t e medi cal r eport s t o the contr ary. T he tr i al j udge al s o not ed the in c o n sis ten c y o f D a v id ’s c laim o f p e rm a n e n t an d tota l d isa b ili ty a n d in a b ili ty to b e in tim a te
w ith h is w ife so lely re late d to th e a c c id e n t in d isc o v e ry re sp o n se s w h e n c o m p a re d to h is S ocial S ecuri ty d i sabi l i ty app l i cat i on , r el at i ng hi s dis abil i ty t o heartprobl em s and sho rtness
o f b re a th , in tera lia
. ¶2 5. T he t r i al courtf ou nd tha tD e br a ha d mi s r e pr e s e nt e d the f a c ttha ts he w a s s eeki ng
com pen sat i on fornu rs i ng services
. T he tr i al j ud ge fo un d in hi s orderthat the m ost “c o m p ell ing rea so n ” fo r gra n ti n g d ism issal w as the A sh m o res’ “ d eli b era te att em p t t o su b v ert the j udi ci al proc es s . ” C our t s , t r i al or appe l l at e, shoul d notcondone l i es orm ol l i f y penal t i es f orl yi ng ordi s cour age tr i al j udges f r om pr ot ect i ng ourcourt s f r om those w ho w oul d s eek t o a bu s e the j ud i c i a l p r oc e s s i n pu r s ui to f l uc r e . Eve ry c ou r t , a te ve ry l e ve l , s houl d be vi gi l anti n m ai nt ai ni ng i nt egr i ty.

### 15

¶2 6
. T h e trial c o u rtcit ed an d th en ap p li ed th e co rrect l eg al st an d a rd . O u r ro le is to “cons i der [ ] w hetherthe deci s i on w as one of s ever al re as onabl e ones w hi ch coul d have be en
m ade. ” R h a ly , 95 So. 3d at607. A s di s cus s ed supra , ou r prec ed en t sup p o rt s the tr ial co u rt ’s di s m i s s al a s one of

s ever al vi abl e opt i ons w hi ch the courtc oul d m ake. T he tr i al courtr el i ed upon thi s C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n P ier ce and Sc og gins . T he tr i al courtci t ed Pi er ce forthe pr opos i t i on thatthatl es s ers anct i ons w oul d nothave a chi eved the pr operdet err ente f f ectand
c o u ld h a v e re su lted in n o p e n a lti e s if th e M iss iss ip p i D e fe n d a n ts h a d re c e iv e d a fa v o ra b le
v erd ict
. T h e tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n w as o n e o f th e alt ern ati v es o u r l aw all o w s. T h e d issen t’ s di s agr eementw i th the tr i al courti s notthe equi val entof c om m i t t i ng “ cl eare rr orof j udgm ent i n the conc l us i on [ the tr i al c our t ] r eac hed upon w ei ghi ng of r el evantf

act or s . ” D i s agr eei ng
w i th the i m pl ement at i on of one of seve r al per m i s s i bl e sa nct i ons does notappr oach abus e of d iscreti o n , m u ch less e q u ate to ab u se. If w e stay tru e to a n d h o n o r th e a p p rop ri ate stan d ard of r evi ew , a di s cr et i onary deci s i on of a tr i al j udge musts t and. ¶27. T he cas e s ub j udi ce i s s tr i ki ng l y s i m i l art o Sc og gins . I n Sc og

gins , th e p lai n ti ff
a lleg e d inju rie s to h e r fo o t, leg , a n d b a c k
. Scogg ins , 7 4 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 1 . In re sp o n se to in ter ro g a to ry q u e stio n s a b o u t p a st in ju rie s to a re a s a ffe c ted b y th e a c c id e n t, S c o g g in s fa lse ly
sw o re , “I h a v e n e v e r s u sta in e d a n in ju ry to th e p o rtio n s o f m y b o d y I c laim w e re in ju re d in t he acc i dent , exce ptthati n 1958 .
. . [ I ] r ece i ved a pi nched ne r ve i n m y back. ” I d. A ther depos i t i on, s he f

al s el y t es t i f

i ed “s he had no pr ob l ems bef or e the ac ci dent
. ” I

d. C ontr as t i ngl y,
m edi cal r ecor ds r evea l ed thatS cog gi ns had bee n “exa m i ned and/ ortr eat ed f orpai n,
num bnes s and/ orarthr i t i s i n herl ef tl eg, back, hi p and/ orspi ne” on numer ous occa s i ons pr i or

### 16

to th e a c c id e n t. I

d. a t 9 9 2 . T h e trial c o u rt, ex e rc isin g its d isc re tio n , g ra n te d a d ism iss a l, fi n d in g S c o g g in s ’s e x p la n a tio n s fo r o m ittin g th e in fo rm a tio n n o t c re d ib le
. I d. ¶28. I n t oday’ s c as e, the A s hm or es of f er ed no e xpl anat i on i n r es pons e t o the M i s s i s s i ppi D efe n d an ts’ m o ti o n to d ism iss, eith er b y affidav ito r l ive testi m o n y a t th e h ea ri n g . In Sc og gins , w e a ffirm e d th e trial c o u rt’s d ism iss a l, co n c lu d in g th a t “S c o g g in s w ilfu lly
s ubm i tt ed f

al s e ans w er s t o i nt err og at ori es and k no w i ng l y d i d n ot a ns w erdepos i t i on ques t i ons truthf ul l y. ” I d. at997. ¶2 9
. T h e trial c o u rtfou n d a pa tt ern of “w il lf u l m isr ep rese n tation s” a n d a “ d e lib e ra te att empt t o s ubvertj us t i ce” by both A s hm or es . D avi d A s hm or e notonce, buttw i ce, deni ed i n i nt err ogat ory answ er s havi ng “any i nj ur i es pr i ort o the s ubj ectm ot orvehi cl e ac ci dent
w hic h a f f ect ed the s ame partorpa r t s of hi s body as the i nj ur i es w hi ch w er e i ncu rr ed as a
r es ul tof the s ubj ectm ot orvehi cl e acc i dent[ back and l egs ]
. ” T he thi r d t i m e D avi d ans w er ed th e in ter ro g a to ry , h e re v e a led fo r th e first t im e tha t h e p re v io u sly h a d b e e n d iag n o se d w ith
cor onary heartdi s eas e and ki dney s t ones , buta gai n mai nt ai ned no otherpr i ori nj ur i es t o the
a re a s o f h is b o d y w h ic h h e c laim e d w e re in ju re d in th e a c c id e n t. A t h is d e p o sitio n , D a v id change d hi s s t ory agai n. H e then admi t t ed t o previ ou s i njur i es t o hi s back a nd r i ghtknee,
w hi ch r equi r ed s ur gery, al ong w i th a s ubs equentl ef t - knee i nj ury. H e cont i nued t o deny pr i or
s ur gery t o hi s l eftk nee. A f t erbei ng conf

r ont ed w i th m edi cal r ecor ds t o the contr ary, A s hm or e’ s att orney ac know l edged a tthe hea r i ng on t he m ot i on t o di s m i s s , t hatD avi d had had s ur gery “on b ot h knees
. ” Tri al j udges have the r i ghtt o r el y on the r epr es ent at i ons p re s e n te d to th e m b y a tto rn e y s . See N ox ube e Count

y v. Long , 141 M i s s . 72, 106 So. 83, 85

### 17

( 1925) ( l i t i gant“i s bound by the admi s s i ons and s t i pul at i on s of i t s att orneys t ouchi ng the
a c tio n to the sa m e e x ten t th a t an in d iv id u a l w o u ld b e b o u n d .”); s ee L a n e v. W o o dla n d H ill s B aptis t Church , 285 So. 2d 901, 905 ( M i s s . 1973 ) ( “[ A ] n att orney may bi nd hi s cl i entby stip u latio n o r a d m iss io n o f f a c ts d u rin g th e c o u rse o f th e trial” ); see al so A ccident

I ns. Co.
v. Cla s s i c Bld

g. Des i g n, LLC , 2 0 1 2 W L 3 9 1 3 0 9 0 , * 1 2 n .8 (S .D . M iss . S e p t. 7, 2 0 1 2 ) (“ It is
w e ll se ttl e d u n d e r M iss iss ip p i la w th a t an a tto rn e y h a s th e a u th o rity to b in d h is c lien t to sti p u lat ion s o r ad m issi o n s o f fact”). T h e d issen t po sit s m o re p roo f m u st be req u ir ed
. If th ere
w as a cr edi bl e expl anat i on ( the expl anat i on i n Sc og gins w as as notcr edi bl e) , the A s hm or es
s houl d have made themsel ves avai l abl e t o rebut the evi dence pr es ent ed t o and r el i ed upon by the tr i al j udge. ¶30. T he tr i al cour tfurtherfound thatD ebr a w as at t empt i ng t o doubl e- di p by see ki ng “the
s a me typ e o f

c ompe ns a t i on ” i n a s e pa r a t e s ui t , whi c h s he a da mant l y de ni e d du r i ng her depos i t i on. J us tas i n Sc og gins , the A sh m o re s “ w ilfu lly su b m itt e d fa lse a n sw e rs to i nt err og at ori es and k no w i ng l y d i d n ot answ er depos i t i on ques t i ons truthf ul l y. ” Sc og

gins , 743 So. 2d at997. ¶31. T he di s s entof

f er s pos s i bl e exc us es n ever o ff ered b y t he A s hm or es atthe hear i ng,
r ew ei ghs evi dence , and then pos i t s that“ [ f ] orthe mostpart , how ever , the A s hm or es ei ther cl ar i f i ed omi s s i ons i n thei rde po s i t i on s ora t t empt ed t o expl ai n the i ncons i s t enci es . ” ( D i s . O p. ¶5 1 ). T h is argu m en t m isses the m ark
. T h e d ec isi o n b e fo re th e tr ial co u rtw as w h ethe r a di s m i s s al achi eves the appr opr i at e det err ente f f ectand pr event s part i es f r om “get [ t i ng] aw ayL es s ers anct i ons “w oul d nota chi eve the det err entval ue of the di s m i s s al
. Si nce a ny 12 others anct i on bes i de di s m i s s al w oul d vi r tual l y al l ow the pl ai nt i f f t o getaw ay w i th l yi ng underoath w i thouta meani ngf ul pe nal ty, the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng thi s f act orw as corr ect . ” P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1391. 

### 18 w i th l yi ng underoath w i t houta meani ngf ul penal ty. ” See P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1391; 12 Sc og gins , 743 So. 2d 994. A di s m i s s al s erves thatpurpos e. ¶32. T he tr i al courtcon si dered ou r holdi ngs i n P ier ce and Sc og gins b e fo re m a k in g its
ru lin g . W e d isc e rn n o th in g in th e re c o rd th a t (1 ) su g g e sts a n “ a rb itrar y ” o r “ c le a rly
e rro n e o u s” ru lin g w a s m a d e b y th e lea rn e d trial ju d g e , o r (2 ) in stills in th is C o u rt a “ d e fin ite and f i r m convi ct i on thatthe courtbe l ow c om m i t t ed a cl eare rr orof j udgm ent . ” These ar e the g u id e lin e s w e a re b o u n d to fo llo w . See A llen , 9 34 S o. 2d at1013 ( af f i r m i ng di s m i s s al beca us e “[ t ] he tr i al cour tcert ai nl y w ei ghed the r el evantfa ct or s i n r eac hi ng i t s concl us i on and no evi dence exi s t s i n the r ecor d t o s uppor ta f i ndi ng of a c l eare rr orof

j udgm entorabus e of b y the tri al co u rt ”). CO NC L US I ON ¶33
. W e aff

i rm the tr i al cou rt ’s grantof the M i ssi ssi pp i D efendan t s’ M oti on t o D i sm i ss. ¶ 3 4
. AFF I RM ED . W A L L E R , C .J ., D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., L A M A R , P I E R C E A N D C O L E M A N , J J ., CO NCU R. KI NG , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED B Y K I T C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. KI NG , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 3 5 . P rio r to iss u in g th e “ d e a th p e n a lty ” o f c iv il sa n c tio n s, th e trial c o u rt fa iled to adeq uatel y app l y the corr ects t and ard t o the u nique fact s pres ented i n today’s case. B ecause

### 19

th is c a se sh o u ld b e re m a n d e d fo r a c o m p re h e n siv e h e a ri n g to d e ter m in e th e a p p ro p ria te
sa n c tio n , if an y , I d iss e n t. ¶ 3 6
. A lth o u g h th e m a jo rity c o rre c tly q u o tes th is C o u rt’s s tan d a rd o f re v iew a p p lied to di s covery s anct i on cas es , the maj or i ty i gnor es thi s C our t ’ s l ongs t andi ng gui dance t o tr i al
co u rt s: “th e tri al co u rtsh o u ld d ism iss a ca u se o f acti o n for fail u re to c o m p ly w ith d isco v ery onl y underthe m os textr eme ci r cumst ance s . ” P ier ce v. Her itage Props . , I nc. , 688 So. 2d 13 85 , 13 88 ( M i s s . 19 97 ) ( c i t i ng Ha pg o o dv . B ilox iR eg’l

Med. Ctr. , 540 So. 2d 630, 634 ( M i s s . 1 98 9) )
. W he n de t e r mi ni ng the a pp r op r i a t e ne s s o f s a nc t i on s u nd e rRul e 37, t he f ol l ow i ng f

ourf act or s ar e cons i der ed: F ir st, dism issal is au tho ri ze d o n ly w h en the fa il u re to c o m p ly w ith the c o u rt ’s or derr es ul t s f

r om w i l f ul nes s orbad fa i th, and notfr om t he i nabi l i ty t o compl y. D i s m i s s al i s pr operonl y i n s i tuat i on[ s ] w her e the det err entval ue of R ule 37 cannotbe s ubs t ant i al l y achi eved by t he use of l es s dra s t i c s anct i ons . A nother cons i der at i on i s w hetherthe otherparty’ s pr epar at i on f ortr i al w as s ubs t ant i al l y p rej ud i ced. Fi nall y, dis m i ssal m ay b e i nappropr i at e w hen negl ect i s pl ai nl y at tr i but abl e t o an att orney r atherthan a bl amel es s cl i ent , orw hen a p arty’s sim p le ne g li g en ce is gro u n d e d in co n fusio n o r si n ce re m is u n d e rs ta n d in g o f t h e c o u rt ’s o rd e rs . I d . at1389 ( quot i ng B ats on v. N eal Spelce A ssocs. , 7 6 5 F . 2 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 4 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶37. I n P ier ce , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 9 2 , this C o u rt u p h e ld th e trial c o u rt’s d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 37. T he pl ai nt i f

f i n P ier ce w a s in

ju re d w h e n a c e ilin g fa n in h e r a p a rt m e n t f e ll. I d . at1387. T he j ury r eturned a ver di cti n fa vorof the pl ai nt i f f , butt he tr i al cour tgra nt ed a ne w tr i al due to a n im p ro p e r c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. I d . I n the f i r s ttr i al a nd dur i ng di s covery f orthe s econd tr ia l, th e p la in ti f

f m a in ta in e d th a t th e re w e re n o e y e w itn e s s e s to th e in c id e n t. I d . T he def endant s r ece i ved an anonymous phone cal l af t erthe f i r s ttr i al s t at i ng thatthe pl ai nt i f f w as

### 20

n o t a lo n e w h e n th e in c id e n t o c c u rr e d
. I d. a t 1 3 8 8 . T h e p lain tiff id e n tified th e w itn e ss o n ly
a ft e r s h e re a liz e d th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re a w a re o f t h e w it n e s s ’ s e x is te n c e . I d . In h is d e p o s itio n , th e w itn e s s c o n fi rm e d th a t h e w a s p re s e n t d u ri n g th e in c id e n t. I d . T h is C o u rt f ou nd tha td i s mi s s a l was p r ope ri n P ier ce beca us e the pl ai nt i f f’ s f ai l ur e t o di s cl os e the
ex i s t e nc e of

a mat e r i a l w i tne s s w a s w i l l f ul , “ ob s truc t e d the pr og r e s s of l i t i ga t i on , ” a nd
c o n s titu te d b a d fa ith
. I d . a t 1 3 9 0
. ¶38. I n Scoggins v. E l l z ey Bever ages, I

nc. , 7 4 3 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ), this C o u rt affirm ed the tri al co u rt ’s dism iss a l of a p lai n ti ff’ s p erso n al-i n jury claim w h en the p lai n ti ff
c on c e a l e d mat e r i a l p a r t s o f h e rmed i c a l h i s t ory. The p l a i nt i f f i n S cog gins compl ai ned of in ju ri e s to h e r f

o o t, le g , a n d b a c k
. I

d . a t 9 9 1
. T h e p la in tiff d e n ied h a v in g p rio r in ju rie s to th e s e a r e a s in b o th h e r i n te rr o g a to ry re s p o n s e s a n d d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y . I d . at991- 92. A fte r th e p lain tiff re sp o n d e d to d isc o v e ry a n d p ro v id e d d e p o sitio n te stim o n y , the d e fe n d a n ts ob t ai ned her m edical recor ds, w hich sho w ed that she h ad b een tr eat ed for pai n, nu m bn ess, and arthr i t i s i n herl egs , back, hi ps , s houl der , neck, and el bow s forappr oxi m at el y ei ght een y e a rs b e fo re h e r a c c id e n t. I d . a t 9 9 2
. T h is C o u rt fo u n d th a t d ism iss a l w a s p ro p e r in S co g gins be c a us e the p l a i nt i f f “ w i l f ul l y s ub mi t t e d f

a l s e a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr og a t or i e s and know i ngl y di d notans w erdepos i t i on ques t i ons truthf ul l y. ” I d. at997. ¶39. A l though thi s C our thas uphel d tr i al court s ’ di s m i s s al s underR ul e 37, w e al s o have f ound thatdi s m i s s al i s notappr opr i at e i n otherci r cumst ance s . I n W oo d e x r el . W ood v. B iloxiPubli c School

D is tr i ct , 757 So. 2d 190, 195 ( M i s s . 2000), t hi s C our tre ver s ed the tr i al
courtj udgm entw hen the di s m i s s al w as base d on one i nt err ogat ory re s pons e thatcoul d have

### 21

been i nt erpr et ed i n var i ous w ays . T he pl ai nt i f f i n W ood w as in

jured w h en a sch o o l bu s rea re n d e d h is c a r. I

d . a t 1 9 2 . T h e p lain tiff re sp o n d e d to a n in ter ro g a to ry a b o u t th e e x ten t o f h is i n j u r i e s ; th e r e s p o n s e s t a t e d : “ Th e s e i n j u r i e s a f f e c t e d my a t t i tu d e , my c o n c e n tr a t i o n , my
sc h o o l w o rk , an d m y a b ili ty to d o m a n u a l lab o r. I n o lo n g e r a m a b le to e n jo y tin k e rin g w ith aut om obi l es a s the s t oopi ng, be ndi ng, a nd s quatt i ng a r e pai nf ul
. ” I d . D ur i ng di s covery, the d e fe n d a n ts o b tain e d s u rv e ill a n c e v id e o o f th e p lain tiff b e n d in g , tw istin g , a n d sq u a tti n g w h ile p e rf o rm in g ta s k s a t a tir e s h o p . I d . T he def

endant s f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s underR ul e 37, cl ai m i ng thatthe pl ai nt i f f ha d l i ed i n hi s i nt err ogat ory r es pons e, and the tr i al courtgr ant ed th e m o tio n . I

d . W e r ever s ed, f

i ndi ng thatthe al l egedl y f al s e i nt err og at ory re s pons e w as
o p e n to m u ltip le in te rp re ta tio n s . I d . at 19 4
. F u rth er, th is C o u rtrec o g n ized that the p lai n ti ff h ad test if ied in h is de p o sit ion that h e w as ab le to p erfo rm m an u al lab o r, b u t th at i t w as m o re p a in fu l th a n b e fo re th e a c c id e n t. I d . a t 1 9 4 . T h is C o u rt sta ted : T he School D i s t ri ctw oul d have a m uch s tr ongercas e i f W ood had as s ert ed dur i ng hi s depos i t i on thathe w as i n f actuna bl e t o pe r f

or m hi s w or k f

unct i ons as bef or e. . . . [ T ] he f

actrem ai ns t hatW ood acknow l edged i n hi s depos i t i on thathe w as a bl e t o per f

or m t as ks as bef

or e the ac ci dent
. T he pr es entcas e does no ti nv olve one of “tho se r are i nst ances w here the co nd uct of a party is so egr egi ous thatno others anct i on w i l l m eetthe dem ands of j us t i ce, ” the tr i al c o u rta b u s e d h is d is c re tio n in c o n c lu d in g o th e rw is e . I d . at194- 95 ( quot i ng Sc og gins , 7 4 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 7 ). ¶40. T he uni que and pa r t i cul arf act s of t oday’ s cas e f

al l s om ew her e betw een the egr egi ous act s cont empl at ed by P ier ce and Sc og gins and the s i ngl e, vague d i s c ov ery r es pons e i n W ood
. A s such – a nd a s di s cus s ed i n more de t ai l be l ow – the tr i al c our ts houl d ha ve hel d a

### 22

compre hens i ve hea r i ng on the D ef endant ’ s m ot i on pr i ort o i s s ui ng the “de ath penal t y” of
s a n c tio n s . ¶41. T he maj or i ty i m pl i es that , beca us e the tr i al courti n t oday’ s cas e ci t ed ourhol di ngs i n P ier ce and Sc og

gins , thatthe corr ectl egal s t andar d w as appl i ed and thi s cas e s houl d be af f i r m ed. ( M aj
. O p. ¶ 11. ) M er e ci t at i on t o thi s C our t ’ s s t andar d i s no ts uf f i ci ent . T he
s ta n d a rd m u s t b e a c tu a lly a n d c o rr e c tly a p p lie d , n o t ju s t p a s s in g ly re fe re n c e d
. ¶42. B as ed on P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1398, th e firs t c o n sid e ra tio n is w h e th e r “ th e fa ilu re to
c o m p ly w ith th e c o u rt’s o rd e r re su lts fro m w ilfu ln e ss o r b a d fa ith , an d n o t fro m th e in a b ili ty t o compl y. ” The t r i al c our ti n t oday’ s c as e f ound thatthe A s hm or es ’ i nt err ogat ory r es pons es
an d d epo si t i on t est i m on y co ntai ned “w i l l ful m i sr epresent at i on s. ” D avid’ s i nterroga tory
r es pons es di d om i tm at er i al par t s of hi s m edi cal hi s t ory. B ut , unl i ke the pl ai nt i f f s i n P ier ce and Sc og gins , D avi d c l ar i f

i ed thes e omi s s i ons i n hi s depos i t i on w hen he a dm i t t ed havi ng a p rio r b a c k in

ju ry , rig h t-k n e e su rg e ry , a n d an inju ry to h is left le g . In h is d e p o sitio n , D a v id deni ed havi ng l eft -knee sur gery pr i ort o the ac ci dent
. A nd the medi cal r ecor ds the M issi ssipp i D efe n d an ts cit e in su p p o rtof th eir co n tention th at D av id ha d su rge ry o n h is l eft knee p ri or t o the ac ci dentdo notunequi vocal l y es t abl i s h thatas f act . Forexampl e, the M i s s i s s i ppi D ef

endant s ci t e an O ct ober1, 2008, medi cal r ecor d w hi ch s t at es thatD avi d had
su rg e ry o n h is le ft a n d rig h t k n e e s. In re sp o n se , th e A sh m o re s p o in t o u t th a t D a v id d id , in fact , hav e surgery on h i s l eftkn ee on Jul y 1 7, 2 0 0 8 – a pp roxi m at el y four m on ths af t er the
acc i dent
. F urt her, al though D avi d pr ovi ded a c om pl et e medi cal
- r ecor ds r el eas e t o the M i s s i s s i ppi D ef

endant s , they have pr oduced o nl y one medi cal r ecor d f r om bef or e the

### 23

acc i dentw hi ch s uppor t s thei rcont ent i on thatD avi d had l ef t - knee s ur gery pr i ort o the
a c c id e n t – a M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , e n try in D a v id ’s fa m ily p h y sic ian ’s r e c o rd sta tin g th a t D a v id “has had s ur gery bef

or e on hi s knees
. ” They have not , how ever , pr oduced a ctual r ecor ds of th e a lle g e d s u rg e ry . ¶43. T he M i s s i s s i ppi D ef endant s al s o cl ai m thatthe A s hm ore s pr ovi ded f al s e t es t i m ony
r egar di ng the bas es of

D avi d’ s di s abi l i ty. D avi d and D ebr a both s t at ed i n thei rdepos i t i ons that D av id’s d isab il ity w as a ttri b u table o n ly to h is i n juri es fro m the c ar a cc iden t. D av id’s Soci al Secur i ty appl i cat i on, how ever , l i s t ed D avi d’ s heartprobl ems and di abet es as condi t i ons thatcontr i but ed t o hi s i nabi l i t y t o w ork, i n addi t i on t o the i nj ur i es f r om the ca r
acc i dent
. I nt er es t i ngl y, D ebr a t es t i f i ed i n herdepos i t i on thatD avi d’ s heartpr obl ems and di abet es w er e exa cerbat ed by the s ur ger i es and medi cat i on h e rec ei ved as a r es ul tof the
a c c id e n t. ¶ 4 4
. T h e M iss iss ip p i D e fe n d a n ts a lso c laim th a t D e b ra p ro v id e d fa lse tes tim o n y a s to
w hethers he w as se eki ng damages f orhernur s i ng s ervi ces and emot i onal di s tr es s i n the pr es entcas e as w el l as the unr el at ed nur s i ng- hom e- negl i gence cas e she fi l ed on behal f of her father. W hil e ther e are i nco nsi st ences i n D ebra’ s t est i m on y an d w ri t t en d i scovery, these sta tem e n ts, sta n d in g a lo n e , w o u ld n o t w a rra n t sa n c tio n s. L ik e th e in ter ro g a to ry re sp o n se in W ood , D eb ra’s interrog atory resp o n se in the n u rsi n g -ho m e c ase w as v ag u e a n d op en t o m o re than one i nt erpr et at i on. T he r es pons e s t at ed thatD ebr a had notbeen tr eat ed f orm ent al or emot i onal di s tr es s i n a mat t erunre l at ed t o the nur s i ng- hom e ca s e – f orexampl e, t oday’ s cas e. T h e re sp o n se d id n o t, ho w e v e r, sta te th a t D e b ra h a d n o t expe r i ence d m ent al oremot i onal

### 24

di s tr es s . Fur ther , al though D ebr a t es t i f i ed thatshe w as notsee ki ng dam ages forhernur s i ng
s ervi ces i n the nur s i ng- hom e ca s e, the compl ai ntfort he nur s i ng- hom e cas e cl ear l y s t at ed that
s h e wa s s e e k i n g th i s ty p e o f d a ma g e s . I ts h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o we v e r , th a tth e n u r s i n g - h o me
c o m p la in t h a d n o t b e e n s e rv e d a t th e tim e o f D e b ra ’s d e p o s itio n . ¶ 4 5 . T h e s e c o n d c o n sid e ra tio n in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in di s m i s s i ng a ca s e w i th pr ej udi ce unde rR ule 37 i s w hetherthe “de t err entval ue of R ul e 37
c a nn otb e s ub s t a nt i a l l y a c hi e ve d by the u s e o f l e s s d r a s t i c s a nc t i on s . ” I d . E s s ent i al l y, the tr i al c our tmustc ons i derw hetherl es s ers anct i ons s uch as att orneys ’ f ees , l i m i t i ng t es t i m ony,
o r fin e s w o u ld p ro v id e a su ffic ien t d e ter re n t v a lu e . A s p a rt o f th is c o n s id e ra tio n , co u rts sh o u ld b e m ind ful o f de terri n g d isco v ery ab u ses fo r no t on ly the p rese n t case , b u t for futu re
c a s e s a s w e ll. W

h ite v. W h ite , 5 0 9 S o . 2 d 2 0 5 , 2 0 9 ( M is s . 1 9 8 7 ). D ism issal f o r disco v ery
v i o l a t i o n s i s “ d r a c o n i a n ” a n d a “ r e me d y o f l a s tr e s o r t ” th a ts h o u l d o n l y b e a p p l i e d i n e x tr e me
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I

d . ¶46. I n Sc og

gins , 743 So. 2d at994, the tr i al c our tpr ovi ded a det ai l ed ana l ys i s of the l es s er
s anct i ons avai l abl e and w hy the s anct i ons w oul d notdet erdi s covery abus e i n thatcas e. T he trial c o u rt c o n sid e re d fin e s a n d a w a rd in g a tto rn e y s’ f e e s to th e p lain tiff th a t w e re a ttribu tab le to its R u le 3 7 m o tio n . I

d . B eca us e di s covery i n t he cas e had concl uded, the tr i al courtf ound th a t le s s e r s a n c tio n s w o u ld n o t p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te d e te rr e n t. I d . ¶47. I n t oday’ s cas e, the tr i al courtr ecogni zed the l es s er - s anct i ons di s cus s i on i n Sc og gins , butf ai l ed t o anal yze w hetherl es s ers anct i ons w oul d be appr opr i at e i n thi s cas e:

### 25

T h e C o u rt is c o g n iza n c e [sic ] of th e fa c t th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s m a n d a ted it i m pos e the l eas tr es tr i ct i ve s anct i on thatw i l l acc om pl i s h the purpos e f orw hi ch i ti s i m pos ed. T he C our thas al s o cons i der ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s di s cus s i on of s i m pl y al l ow i ng f

orv i go rous cr os s - exami nat i on ori m pos i ng f ees or r e d u c i n g th e v e r d i c t . As t o i mp o s i n g f e e s o rr e d u c i n g th e v e r d i c t , th e S u p r e me C our tnot ed i n Sc og

gins , t he tr i al cour tprope r l y f ound s uch a s anct i on cr eat es se v e ra l p ro b lem s s u c h a s w h a t to d o if th e d e fe n se o b tain s a v e rd ic t in its fav o r.

. . . A s s t at ed supra , the C o u rt is aw a re o f th e p re c e d e n t se t by the ca se law o n th is iss u e . D ism iss a l is a n e x tre m e sa n c tio n . H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt h a v in g c a re fu lly re v iew e d th e p lea d in g s a n d th e tra n sc rip t fin d s d ism iss a l is a p p ro p ria te in th is act i on. A s not ed by the tr i al courti n Sc og gins , “the C our tf

i nds thatperhaps the m ostco m pell i ng reason forg rant i ng the D efendan t ’s m oti on i s t o redress an appa r ent l y del i ber at e att empt t o s ubvertthe j udi ci al pr oces s . ” A lth o u g h th e trial c o u rt sta ted th a t d ism iss a l is “ a p p ro p ria te in th is a c tio n ” a n d d isc u ss e d th is C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Sc og gins , t he r eas oni ng behi nd t hi s concl us i on i s t ot al l y abs ent . L evyi ng the “ d ea th p en alty ” o f disco v ery san cti o n s req u ires m o re tha n rec o g n izi n g this C o u rt ’s pr ece dentw i th r es pectt o thes e s anct i ons ; the pr ece dentm us tbe appl i ed t o the fa ct s of the p re s e n t c a s e . ¶48. T he thi r d f

act ort o be cons i der ed i s w hetherthe otherparty’ s pr epar at i on f ortr i al w as
s u b s ta n tia lly p re

ju d ic e d
. P ier ce , 688 So. 2d a t1389. T he M i s s i s s i ppi D ef endant s cl ai m that they s uf f er ed pr ej udi ce i n w as t ed l i t i gat i on re s our ces , t hr ough gener al frus tr at i on, and “r ew or ki ng” thei rl i t i gat i on s tr at egy. T he tr i al court ’ s orderdoes notaddr es s pr ej udi ce t o the M i ssi ssi pp i D efendan t s. A nd atthe h eari ng , the tr i al cou rtst at ed thati tw as “not s o
c o n c e rn e d ” w ith p re

ju d ic e . P i er ce , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 9 1 , rec o g n ize d th a t th e re is n o t a

### 26

r equi r ementthatthe def endantbe s ubs t ant i al l y pr ej udi ced by t he pl ai nt i f f’ s conduct
. T he
c o u rtm a y , h o w e v e r, c o n s id e r p re ju d ic e in d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a s a n c tio n is w a rr a n te d
. I d. ¶49. A party w i l l l i kel y s uf f eratl eas ts om e pr ej udi ce i n the cas e of i ncompl et e ori ncorr ect d is c o v e ry re s p o n s e s . See id . at1389 ( “A f

al s e ans w eri s i n s om e w ays w or s e than no ans w er [b e c a u se ] i t m isle a d s a n d c o n fu se s th e p a rty .”). I n to d a y ’s c a se , h o w e v e r, d isc o v e ry w a s s til l in it s infan cy . T h e M issi ssipp i D efe n d an ts no ti c e d th e d ep o sit ion s o f th irty-fou r ex p ert
w itn e ss e s, a n d o n ly o n e e x p e rt d e p o sitio n h a d o c c u rre d p rio r to th e h e a rin g o n the m o tio n to d is m is s . ¶50. T he f

i nal cons i der at i on i s w hetherthe “ne gl ecti s pl ai nl y attr i but abl e t o an att orney
r atherthan a bl amel es s c l i ent , orw hen a party’ s s i m pl e negl i gence i s gr ounded i n conf us i on
ors i ncer e mi s under s t andi ng of the court ’ s or der s . ” I d . at1389. T he tri al courtdi d not sp e c ifica lly a d d re ss th is fa c to r in h is o rd e r d ism iss in g the ca se . T h e A sh m o re s d o n o t cla im t h a tth e n e g l e c ti s a t tr i b u t a b l e t o th e i ra t t o rn e y , b u ti n s t e a d c l a i m th a tth e c o n f u s i o n s t e ms f r om D avi d notknow i ng t hatsur gi cal cl i ps w er e us ed dur i ng hi s hearts ur gery. Sur gi cal cl i ps
w e re , in fa c t, p la c e d n e a r D a v id ’s le ftk n e e d u ri n g a h e a rts u rg e ry . ¶51. T her e ar e cl earom i s s i ons and i ncons i s t enci es i n the A s hm or es ’ di s covery r es pons es
a n d d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y . A n d th e s e o m is s io n s m a y w a rr a n t s o m e ty p e o f s a n c tio n . See P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1389. Forthe mostpart , how ever , the A shm ores e i thercl ar i f i ed
om i s s i ons i n thei rdepos i t i ons oratt empt ed t o expl ai n the i ncons i s t enci es – f orexampl e, D e b ra ’s te stim o n y rela tin g to D a v id ’s h e a rt p ro b lem s a n d d iab e tes b e in g e x a c e rb a ted b y h is
c a r- a c c id e n t in

ju ri e s .

### 27

¶ 5 2
. F u r th e r , th e f

a c t s of t o d a y ’ s c a s e a r e u n i q u e a n d d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m P ier ce and Sc og gins . In th o se c a se s, th e re w a s n o d isp u te a s to w h e th e r th e p lain tiffs h a d w ill fu lly
om i t t ed i nf

or m at i on i n di s covery. T he pl ai nt i f f i n Pi e r ce , 6 88 S o. 2d at1388, fa iled to di s cl os e the exi s t ence of a w i tnes s , des pi t e the ca s e goi ng thr ough di s covery a nd tr i al ; buts he di d notcont es tthe exi s t ence of the w i tnes s . A nd the pl ai nt i f f i n Sc og gins , 743 So. 2d at 997, di d notdi s cl os e r el evantm edi cal hi s t ory i n both her i nterr ogat ory r es pons es and de po s i t i on ; b uts he s i mpl y r e bu t t e d the d i s c ov e ry- vi ol a t i on c l a i m by s t a t i ng tha ts he had a p o o r m e m o ry . In th e p re se n t c a se , a c tu a l d isp u tes e x ist a s to w h e th e r th e A sh m o re s w ill fu lly
conce al ed i nf

or m at i on. T he part i es di s agr ee as t o w hetherD avi d had l ef t - knee s ur gery pr i or to th e a c c id e n t. A n d th e p a rt ie s a ls o c o n te s t th e b a s e s o f D a v id ’s d is a b ility
. ¶53. B eca us e of

the part i cul arf

act s of thi s cas e, I f

i nd thatthe tr i al courts hould have
con du ct ed a c o m prehen si ve h eari ng on the M i ssi ssi pp i D efendan t s’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss. W hi l e couns el f

ore ach s i de pr ovi ded ar gum enton the m ot i on, t es t i m ony f r om the A s hm or es and f urthe rmedi c a l e vi de nc e w ou l d h a ve a i de d i n r e s ol vi ng the di s pu t e s di s c us s e d a bove
. I re c o g n iz e th a t a n in -d e p th h e a ri n g is n o t r e q u ir e d – o r e v e n n e c e s s a ry – in m o s t c a s e s . See A l len v. N at ’l R . R . P as s engerCor

p. , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). B u t i n tod ay ’s
cas e, thi s type of

hear i ng i s needed t o ful l y anal yze the i s s ues pr es ent ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi D e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism is s a n d th e A sh m o re s’ r e sp o n se to th e m o tio n , as w e ll as to det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s anct i on. ¶54. Forthi s s ame r eas on, an or derdet ai l i ng the tr i al court ’ s anal ys i s f oreac h P ier ce f

act or i s nece s s ary i n t oday’ s cas e. T he t r i al cour t ’ s orde rdi d nott hor oughl y addr es s each of the

### 28

fo u r c o n sid e ra tio n s. A g a in , I re c o g n ize th a t th is ty p e o f an a ly sis is no t ne c e ss a ry fo r a ll R u le 3 7 m o tio n s . See Sm ith v. T o u g a lo o Co ll. , 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 6 3 3 , 6 4 0 -4 1 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). B utthe f act s of t oday’ s cas e r equi r e i t . Forexampl e, al though the tr i al court ’ s or derci t ed the l es s er - s anct i on anal ys i s i n Sc og gins , the t ri al cou rtdid not address w hy l essersanct i on s,
s uch as cos t s as s oci at ed w i th addi t i onal di s covery ori m peac hm ent, w ou l d notpr ovi de a
s uf f i ci entdet err enti n t oday’ s cas e. C ons i der i ng t he di s cus s i on above, l es s ers anct i ons m ay
ve ry w e l l b e a pp r op r i a t e ; a nd a c ompr e he ns i ve h e a r i ng wi l l l i ke l y a i d i n de t e r m i ni ng t he p ro p e r s a n c tio n . ¶5 5 . T o b e c lea r, c o n side ri n g the u n iqu e fa cts o f t o d ay ’s ca se, I f ind that the tri al co u rt
s houl d have he l d a compr ehens i ve hea r i ng and ent er ed a det ai l ed or deranal yzi ng the P ier ce fa c to rs . C o n tr a ry to th e m a jo ri ty ’s a s s e rt io n th a t I a m “ o ff e ri n g r e lie f” f

o r th e A s h m o re s , I
am sim p ly en su ri n g that the tri al co u rtis co m p li an t w ith this C o u rt ’s direc ti v e in d isco v ery
sa n c tio n ca se s – tha t “th e tri a l co u rt sh o u ld d ism iss a c a u se o f ac tio n fo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly
w i th di s covery onl

y underthe m ost

extr em e ci r cum s tances . ” P ier ce , 688 So. 2d at1388 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); A l

len , 934 So. 2d at1008. T hi s Courtm us t“cons i der [ ] w hetherthe [ tr i al
court ’ s ] deci s i on w as one of s ever al r eas onabl e ones w hi ch coul d have bee n m ade. ” I d. As di s cus s ed above , the unus ual f act s of t oday’ s cas e pr es entques t i ons as t o w hetherthi s i s one of the “mostextr eme ci r cum st ances” c ont empl at ed by thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dent
. A s s uch,
w h e th e r t h e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n w a s re a s o n a b le c a n n o t b e d e te rm in e d fr o m th e re c o rd
. ¶5 6. For t he r e a s on s di s c us s e d a bo ve , I w ou l d r e ve r s e the tr i a l c ou r t ’ s j ud gmen ta nd
re m a n d th e c a s e fo r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .

### 29

KI TC HENS AND CHAN DL ER , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.