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 6 - CA- 0 2 0 0 4 - S CT DA VI D S CO GGI

NS
v. BAPTI ST M EM OR I AL H OSPI TAL-DESOTO
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 26/ 2006 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R O B E R T P . C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J OH N M I CH AEL B AI LEY A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E : W A L T E R A L A N D A V IS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 25/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E D I A Z, P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. DI AZ , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . I n t hi s c a s e we a r e a s ke d t o de t e r mi ne when a r eques tf oradmi s s i on i s deemed
a d mi t t e d
. W e f

i n d th a tth e r e q u e s t s a ti s s u e h e r e we r e a d mi t t e d f o rf a i l u r e t o r e s p o n d
. As
a re s u lt, n o f

a c tu a l o r le g a l issu e s a re in d isp u te, a n d su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rly grant ed to the d efendan t s. F act s and P roce edi ngs Bel ow ¶2. D avi d Scoggi ns i s a r es i dent of M emphi s , T ennes s ee, w ho underw ent a col onos copy atB apti stM em ori al H ospit al -D esot o (“B apti st ”), i n S ou thav en. H e f i l ed a co m plai nt agai nst B apt i s t , the chi ef

exec ut i ve of

f i cerof B apt i st , “U nknow n Sur gi cal N ur s e O ne” a nd

### 2

“U nknow n Sur gi cal N ur s e Tw o, ” a l l e gi ng thata mal f unct i on i n a ca ut er i zi ng m achi ne ca us ed hi m a damaged col on, a t eari n hi s abd om i nal w al l , r es pi r at ory arr es t , an err at i c hea r tr at e, and an e xt ended s t ay i n i nt ens i ve ca r e on a ve nt i l at or , al ong w i th otheri nj ur i es . A l though the compl ai ntw as agai ns ta hos pi t al , i t s di r ect or , a nd nur s es f orevent s s urr oundi ng a medi cal pr ocedur e, the compl ai nt w as gr ounded s ol el y upon a theory of negl i gence , notm edi cal negl i gence . ¶3 . W h en B ap ti st an sw ere d the co m p lai n t on F eb rua ry 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , itp rop o u n d ed d isco v ery t o Scoggi ns , i ncl udi ng a s er i es of r eques t s f

oradmi s s i on. A f

t ernear l y f

i ve m onths of

s i l ence f r om Scog gi ns a nd h i s c ou ns e l , Bap t i s tf i l e d a mot i on f

ors umm a ry j ud gmen to n J un e 23, 2006. T he mot i on w as bas ed upon thr ee r eas ons : f i r s t , thatScoggi ns did notatt ach a
c e rtifica te o f e x p e rt c o n su ltatio n a s re q u ire d in m e d ic a l n e g lig e n c e c a se s p u rsu a n t to M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 1 -1-5 8 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ); se co n d , tha t S co g g ins d id n o t ha v e an ex p ert
w i tnes s t o t es t i f

y re gar di ng m edi cal negl i gence , as r equi r ed i n our m edi cal negl i gence cas es ( See B ro o ks v . R o b e rts , 882 So. 2d 229, 232 ( M i s s . 2004) ) ; and thi r d, thatthe r eques t s f or admi s s i on pr opounded t o Scoggi ns w er e neve rans w er ed, and theref or e dee m ed admi t t ed, “con cl usi vely est abli shi ng al l i ssues f or tri al i n favor” of the d efendan t s. ¶4 . B y Ju ly 5 , 2 0 0 6 , B ap ti st ha d rec eive d n o res p o n se to it s m o ti o n , a n d n o ti ce d itfor a h e a rin g fo r O c to b e r 3 . O n Ju ly 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , co u n s e l f o r S c o g g in s a p p a re n tly a ttem p ted to
ans w erthe i nt err ogat or i es a nd r eques t s f orpr oduct i on pr opounded by B apt i s t , and al s o f i l ed
a “ m o tio n to a llo w late filing o f d isc o v e ry re q u e sts .” T h e m o tio n d e taile d th a t b o th o f h is par ent s had been gr avel y i l l w i th canc eratthe t i m e the di s covery w as pr opounded, and that hi s f atherhad pas s ed aw ay on M ar ch 1, 2006. C ou nsel f orScoggi ns admi t t ed thatthe

### 3

req u ests for a d m issi o n w ere n o t ans w ere d in a tim ely fa sh ion b u t did n o t ask the tri al co u rt t o the w i thd raw them
. T he m oti on clung t o the i dea that“this i s a st and ard neg l i gen ce case re g a rd in g n e g lig e n t m a in ten a n c e o f a m a c h in e a n d /o r e lec trica l sy ste m . . . an d th e m a jo rity
o f t h e R e q u e s ts fo r A d m is s io n s a re g ro u n d e d in th e m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e s ta tu te .” ¶ 5 . C o u n se l fo r S c o g g in s d id n o t file a re sp o n se to th e m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t u n til A ugus t31, 2006— r oughl y tw o mont hs af t eri t s f i l i ng. C ouns el f

orScoggi ns neveras ked f or t i m e f r om B apt i s tt o f

i l e the r es pons e l at e, nordi d he as k perm i s s i on of the tr i al court . T he
r es pons e ar gued thats umm a ry j ud gmen tw as i nappr opr i at e, agai n hol di ng s t eadf as t l y thatthe
c a se w a s n o t m e d ica l in n a tu re , b u t ra th e r so m e th in g to w h ich a lay p e rso n c o u ld tes tify ; in the a lt ern ati v e, th e re sp o n se a ll eg ed res ipsa loq u itu r. ¶6 . A ft er a h ea ri n g , th e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e re q u e sts fo r a d m issi o n w ere admi t t ed bec aus e ther e w as no l egi t i m at e r eas on forfa i l ur e t o answ er , and becaus e couns el for S co g g ins n ev er fil ed a m o ti o n to w ith d raw the re q u ests. B ec au se th e re q u ests w ere admi t t ed, ther e w er e no f actual orl egal i s s ues i n di s put e, a nd s um m ary j udgm entw as gr ant ed to th e d e fe n d a n ts . ¶7. A ggr i eved, Scoggi ns appea l s , as s i gni ng s even err or s t o the tr i al court . T hey i ncl ude thatthe tr i al courti gnor ed ques t i ons of m at er i al f

act ; thatthe ca s e w as a “st andar d el ectr i cal
n e g lig e n c e c a se ,” a n d n o t o n e o f m e d ica l n e g lig e n c e ; th a t n o c e rtifica te o f c o n su ltatio n w ith an expe r tw as neede d, as the ca s e w as notmedi cal ne gl i gence i n na tur e; thatr es i ps a l oqui tur a p p lied ; th a t S c o g g in s still h a d p e n d in g m o tio n s b e fo re the trial c o u rt; tha t d isc o v e ry w a s s til l pendi ng; and l as t l y, thatthe tr i al courts houl d nothave de emed t he r eques t s f oradm i ssi on

### 4

as admi t t ed. A s the ent i r e ca s e turns on w hetherthe r eques t s f ora dm i s s i on w er e admi t t ed,
w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s th e o th e r i s s u e s . D i s cus s i on ¶8 . “M att ers o f d isco v ery are left to the so u n d d iscreti o n o f the tr ial co u rt , an d d isco v ery or der s w i l l notbe di s turbed unl es s ther e has been a n abus e of di s cr et i on. ” E ar w ood v. R eev es , 7 9 8 S o . 2d 50 8 , 51 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i ng D aw kins v. R edd Pest Contr ol Co. , 607 So. 2d 1232, 1235 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. Speci f i cal l y, “[ a] cert ai n am ountof di s cr et i on i s vest ed i n the tr i al j udge w i th r es pectt o w hetherhe or s he w i l l t ake mat t er s as admi t t ed. ” I d . ( ci t i ng In re Ci t y of Ri dg e land , 4 9 4 S o . 2 d 3 4 8 , 3 5 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). ¶ 9 . M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 3 6 , w h ich lar g e ly m irro rs its f e d e ra l c o u n terp a rt,
a d d re ss e s a t len g th th e d isc o v e ry p ro c e ss o f re q u e sts fo r a d m iss io n . Id e a lly , the se re q u e sts
n a rr o w th e a c tu a l l e g a l a n d fa c tu a l is s u e s in a c a s e . See Asea, I nc. v. Souther n Pac. T

r ansp. Co. , 6 6 9 F .2 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 5 (9 th . C ir. 1 9 8 1 ) (“ T h e p u rp o se o f [F e d e ra l] R u le 3 6 (a ) is to expedi t e tr i al by es t abl i s hi ng cert ai n m at er i al f act s as true and thus narr ow i ng the r ange of i ssues f or tri al ”). T his con cept i s t aken very seri ou sl y, as “[ t] h e m att er is adm i t t ed u nles s, w i t hi n t hi r ty d a ys a f

t e rs e rvi c e of

the r e qu e s t. . . the pa r ty t o whom t he r e qu e s ti s di r ect ed
s erves upon the party r eques t i ng t he adm i s s i on a w r i t t en ans w erorobj ect i on addr es s ed t o the
m att er , s i gned by the party orby hi s att orney . . . . ” M i s s . R . C i v. P. 3 6(a )
. A ccor di ngl y, “[ a] ny m att eradm i t t ed undert hi s rul e i s concl us i vel y es t abl i s hed unl es s the courton m ot i on p erm it s w ith d raw al or a m en d m en t of th e a d m issi o n . ” M iss. R . C iv. P. 36 (b). ¶10. I n the ca s e athand, B apt i s tpr opounded ei ghtr eques t s f oradmi s s i on. A m ong them
w er e:

### 5

1. Pl eas e admi tthatthe pl ai nt i f f has no pr oof

t o s uppor tthe al l egat i ons of any negl i gence on the partof the nur s es , s ervant s , or empl oyees of the def endant

. . . at th e tim e o f th e su b jec t in c id e n t.

. . . 4. Pl eas e admi tthatno nur s e, emp l oy ee, oragentof [ B apt i s t ] vi ol at ed the ap p li ca b le st an d ard o f ca re w h il e p rov iding ca re a n d tr ea tm en t t o p lai n ti ff d u ri n g h is J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 a d m is s io n to [B a p tis t]. 5. Pl eas e admi tthatno f ai l ur e t o meetthe appl i cabl e s t andar d of c ar e on the partof any [ B apt i s t ] nur s e, empl oyee, ora gentpr oxi m at el y caus ed the i nj ur i es a lleg e d b y th e p lain tiff in h is c o m p lain t.

. . . 8. Pl eas e a dmi ttha ty ou h a ve n o pr oo f t o of f e ro f the a l l e ge d ne gl i ge nce of [th e B a p tis t C E O ]. O th e r re q u e sts a sk e d th e p lain tiff to a d m it th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a q u a lified e x p e rt w itn e ss to tes tify re g a rd in g th e sta n d a rd o f c a re o r p ro x im a te c a u se , an d th a t an e x p e rt h a d re v iew e d h is
c a s e p ri o r t o fi lin g . ¶1 1. A s n ot e d a bo ve , the r e qu e s t s f ora dmi s s i on wer e s e ntt o couns el f orScoggi ns on February 13, 2006. A ccor di ngl y, t o avoi d bei ng deemed admi t t ed underR ul e 36( b) , couns el for S co g g ins n ee d ed to an sw er w ith in thirty d ay s. O n e h u n d red forty-e igh t day s lat er, couns el f orScoggi ns f

i l ed the “mot i on t o a l l ow l at e f i l i ng of di s covery r eques t s . ” The tr i al
courtw as notper s uaded by the ar gum ent s of couns el f

orScoggi ns and rul ed thatthe
a d m is s io n s w o u ld s ta n d
. ¶1 2. I ti s w el l
- s et t l ed thata tr i a l c ou r th a s the d i s c r e t i on t o a l l ow admi s s i ons t o be
w ith d ra w n e v e n a ft e r t h e y a re a d m itte d
. See E ar w ood , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d a t5 1 6 ( “ M e c h a n i s ms exi s tw her eby a tr i al courtm ay hol d thatan unt i m el y r es pons e does notconst i tut e a de emed
a d m iss io n b e c a u se th e trial c o u rt h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n in p re trial m a tters .”) ( e m p h a sis inW e do notaddr es s i n thi s cas e the f actpatt ern w hi ch di d notoccur : thati s , i f the 1 tr oubl es suf

f er ed by counse l forS coggi ns , coupl ed w i th a m ot i on t o w i thdr aw , w oul d have 

### 6 o rig in a l). C o n v e rse ly , “ b e c a u se o f th e tri a l co u rt' s b ro a d d isc re tio n in su c h m a tte rs , it
cert ai nl y m ay al s o r equi r e thatpart i es compl y w i th the rul es as s t at ed. ” I d. ¶13. I n thi s cas e, the tr i al court det erm i ned t hat “t he request s w er e deemed admi t t ed by
o p e ra tio n o f la w ” a fte r th irty d a y s, w h ich is in a c c o rd w ith R u le 3 6 (a ). W e c a n n o t sa y th is
w as an abus e of

t he tr i al cour t ’ s di s cr et i on. A s w e not ed i n E ar w ood , “[ w ] e ar e compel l ed t o acknow l edge the ada ge thatrul es a r e pr om ul gat ed f ora purpos e, thi s bei ng pr eci s el y an i ns t ance i n w hi ch thatpr i nci pl e appl i es . ” I d . A s i n t hatcas e, counse l forScoggi ns “knew
ors houl d have know n the s ever e cons equenc es of f ai l i ng t o t i m el y r es pond. ” I d . at516. ¶14. O n appea l , Scoggi ns a r gues thathi s l at e- f i l ed mot i on, w hi ch cons i s t ed of r es pons es t o the i nt err ogat or i es and r eques t s f orpr oduct i on, coul d be construed as a mot i on t o w i thdr aw the admi s s i ons pur s uantt o R ul e 36( b)
. Y etthe mot i on cont ai ns no r ef er ence t o thatrul e of
c iv il p ro c e d u re n o r a n y re q u e st to h a v e th e a d m iss io n s w ith d ra w n ; as the trial c o u rt h e ld , it
s i m pl y “di d nots eek f

orthe w i thdr aw al of

the al r eady de emed adm i t t ed admi s s i ons . ” ¶1 5. T he mot i on s e t s f orth “ [ t ] ha tu po n i nf

ormat i on a nd b e l i e f

[ B apt i s t ] has m ade no in q u iry a s to th e sta tu s o f th e D isc o v e ry b y te lep h o n e o r w ritten c o m m u n ica tio n .” O u r ru le does notr equi r e a pa r ty t o i nqui r e of anotherw hetherr eques t s f oradmi s s i on have be en a n sw e re d . In d e e d , the p o in t is th a t a d ili g e n t pa rty w ill tak e g re a t pa in s to e n su re th e re q u e sts h a v e e ith e r b e e n a d m itt e d o r d e n ied , as th e y a re a u to m a tica lly d e e m e d a d m itt e d a fte r th irty days
. T he tr i al courtdi d nota bus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r ef us i ng t o cons true thi s m ot i on as one to w ith d raw the a d m issi o n s. A s in the ca se o f Mar tin v. Sim m ons , “ [ t ] h e p r o b l e ms 1s uf

f i ced unde rthe rul e. T he purpos e of ourappel l at e r evi ew i s nott o s ett l e ques t i ons i n the a b s tr a c t o r t o is s u e a d v is o ry o p in io n s . See G a rtr e ll v. G a rtr e ll , 93 6 S o. 2d 91 5, 91 6 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ). 

### 7 e n c o u n ter e d b y th e [p lain tiff ] in th is c a se c o u ld e a sily h a v e b e e n e lim in a ted if a m o tio n to
w ith d raw o r am en d the a n sw ers h ad b ee n fi led p u rsu an t t o R u le 36 (b) a n d if there w ere ju stifia b le e x c u se .” 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 2 5 4 , 2 5 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); s ee al s o Sun bel

t R oyal t y, I nc. v. B igG D r il ling Co. , I

nc. , 592 So. 2d 1011 ( M i s s . 1992) ( r eques t s foradm i s s i on deemed admi t t ed
w h ere d efe n d an t f

ail ed to resp o n d for n ea rl y n ine m o n ths). ¶16 . S co g g ins fu rth er a rgu es th at the case s ho uld notbe di sm i ssed on the b asis o f a dis cov ery vi olat i o n . T o thatend , he cit es P ier ce v. Her itage Properties, I nc. , wh e r e we a llo w e d a c a se to b e d ism iss e d a fte r it b e c a m e c lea r th a t a p a rty m a d e w ill fu l m iss tate m e n ts dur i ng di s covery. 688 So. 2d 13 85 , 1389 (M i s s . 1997)
. Scoggi ns ur ges thatw e appl y the f our - f act oranal ys i s us ed i n P ier ce t o the ca s e athand. H ow ever , t hi s cas e w as notdi s m i s s ed b ec au se o f a d isco v ery v iolati o n . T h e tri al co u rt ’s ruli n g h ad n o thing to d o w ith d isco v ery vi ol at i ons . Ins t ead, the s um m ary j udgm entrul i ng w as bas ed w hol l y upon the admi s s i ons of S cog gins, w hich i n turn eli m i nated hi s abi l i ty to m ou nt any factual orl egal case agai nst B a p tis t. ¶17. For the f

or egoi ng reas ons, the tr i al court di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng the
r eques t s f

oradmi s s i on w er e admi t t ed. C oncl usi on ¶1 8. W hi l e l i t i gat i on can be t i m e- i nt ens i ve andt i me- c on s umi ng , a t t or neys m us t be pr eca ut i ous aboutthe dr as t i c cons equenc es of f ai l i ng t o t i m el y answ err eques t s f or

### 8

admi s s i on. I n the ca s e ath and , the tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deemi ng the request s adm i t t ed, and u l t i m at el y renderi ng sum m ary j ud gm ent i n favor of the d efendan t s. T he tr i al court ’ s j udgm enti s her eby af f i r m ed. ¶ 1 9 . AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, GRAVE S , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR.