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 7 - CA- 0 1 1 2 1 - S CT ES T AT E O F B RA NDON B OL DEN, BY AN D T HROU GH M

AR I L YN B OL DEN, A D M IN IST RA T R IX v. CE DR IC WI

L L I AMSAN

D A UTOZ ONE M I S S I S S I PP I , I NC. D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 01/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : GAR Y D. T HR AS H JO H N N . S A T C H E R , II ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : KEI TH D . OB ERT WI L L I A M F . B R O WN NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 18/ 2009 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. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . T h is i s a p erso n al-i n jury su itin w h ich th e trial co u rtstru ck the p lai n ti ff’ s ex p ert des i gnat i ons and medi cal bi l l s i ncurr ed af t erthe dat e of

the i nj ury. T he j ury reached a ver di ctw hi ch w as unacc ept abl e t o the pl ai nt i f f , and the pl ai nt i f

f pr es ent s us tw o i s s ues on ap p ea l: (1) w h e th e r a p arty m ay p rop erly res p o n d to a R u le 26 (b)(4 ) ex p ert-disco v ery re q u e st s im p ly b y re fe rrin g th e re q u e stin g p a rty to a s o u rc e (s u c h a s th e m e d ica l re c o rd s) to o b tain th e re q u e ste d in fo rm a tio n , an d (2 ) w h e th e r a p lain tiff’s te stim o n y th a t m e d ica l b ill s w e re in c u rre d a s a re su lt o f in ju rie s s u sta in e d in th e a c c id e n t at iss u e e sta b lish e s p rim a fa c ieSe eMis s. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (4) . 1 Bolden did not, however, addr ess the subst ance of facts or a summaryo f the grounds for 2 each opinion. Addit ionally, Williams disputes that all medical summaries had been provided. 

### 2 evi dence thats uch bi l l s w er e nece s s ary a nd r eas onabl e. Fi ndi ng the s econd i s s ue di s pos i t i ve, w e r ever s e and r emand.

B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. O n D ece m ber20, 2002, B r andon B ol den s uf f er ed i nj ur i es af

t erbei ng s truck by a v e h icle a s h e a ttem p ted to c ro s s M ill S tre e t in Ja c k so n . T h e v e h icle w a s d riv e n b y C e d ric W ill iam s, o p e ra tin g in th e c o u rse an d sc o p e o f h is e m p lo y m e n t w ith A u to Z o n e M iss iss ip p i, I nc. ¶3. B ol den f

i l ed s ui tagai ns tW i l l i ams and A ut oZ one. T he def endant s f i l ed di s covery, i ncludi ng a request that B olden i den t i fy expe rtw i tnesses and p rovi de “thei r qual i fi cat i on s, 1 sta te th e su b

jec t m a tter o n w h ich th e e x p e rt is e x p e c ted to tes tify , the su b sta n c e o f th e fa c ts and opi ni ons t o w hi ch the expe r ti s expec t ed t o t es t i f y, [ and] a s um m ary of

the gr ounds f

or eac h s uch opi ni on . . . . ” B ol den r es ponded thathe ha d notye tde ci ded w hom t o c al l as an e x p e rt, b u t sta ted th a t “[e ]ac h . . . p h y sic ian w o u ld b e ex p e c ted to te stify co n sis ten t w ith h is re p o rts, a n d a c o p y o f su c h re p o rts in [B o ld e n ’s] p o ss e ss io n h a s b e e n filed h e re in .” In h is s ubs equentdes i gnat i on and s uppl ement al des i gnat i on of e xpertw i tnes s es , Bol den pr ovi ded the i dent i t i es a nd c urr i cul am vi t a of hi s e xpert s , butm ai nt ai ned thatthei ropi ni ons w er e s et for th in the m edical sum m ari es that pr eviousl y h ad b een p rovi ded t o the defendan t s. 2The tr ial court also granted the de fendants’ motion for partial summ ary judgment, finding 3 that Bolden was negl igent as a matter of law. 

### 3 ¶4 . A r gu i ng tha tBol de n’ s di s c ov e ry r e s po ns e s w e r e i na de qu a t e , the de f e nd a nt s m oved the c o u rtto stri k e B o lden ’s ex p ert de sign ati o n s. B o lden co u n tered th a t, if the tr ial co u rt s truck hi s expertdes i gnat i ons , i ts houl d al s o s tr i ke the def endant s ’ expertd es i gnat i ons f or their fail u re to c o m p ly w ith R u le 26 (b)(4 ). ¶5. T he t r i al cour tgr ant ed both part i es ’ m ot i ons t o s tr i ke the other ’ s expertdes i gnat i ons f orf ai l ure t o compl y w i th R ul e 26( b) ( 4) . T he ca s e pr ocee ded t o tr i al , i n w hi ch B ol den 3 cl ai m ed $16, 505 i n pas tm edi cal e xpens es , $2, 328 of w hi ch w er e i ncurr ed on the dat e of t he a c c id e n t. O v e r th e d e fe n d a n ts’ o b jec tio n s, B o ld e n ’s m e d ica l b ill s w e re a d m itt e d in to evi dence . ¶6. A f

t erthe def

endant s r es t ed, they r enew ed thei rm ot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ct , ar gui ng thatB ol den had f

ai l ed t o est abl i s h a caus al connec t i on betw een the ac ci dentand the medi cal bi l l s . T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the mot i on i n par t , s tr i ki ng B ol den’ s m edi cal bi l l s i ncurr ed af t er th e d a te o f th e a c c id e n t. ¶7. A f

t erthe j ury f

ound Bol den s i xty pe r centa tf aul t , a nd the def

endant s f or ty per centat f aul t , the courtent er ed a f i nal j udgm entaw ar di ng B ol den dam ages of $236, af t err educt i on f orhi s apport i onm entof f aul t . Fol l ow i ng entry of j udgm ent , B ol den di ed, and hi s es t at e – w hich w as subst i tuted as the p l ai nti ff – n ow app eal s.W e n otethat in its “S tat em ent of

theIss ue s, ” th e p lainti ff

ass ign s er

ror only to the trial 4 co urt ’s e xc lus ion

of its expe rts . B ut in it s dis cu ssi on of th e iss ue s, the p lainti ff argue s th at thetri al co urt erred in s tri king b oth parties ’ expert de signations . 

### 4 DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 8 . T h e p lain tiff ra ise s tw o a ss ig n m e n ts o f e rr o r: (1 ) w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in s tr i ki ng the pl ai nt i f

f’ s exper tdesi gnat i ons , and (2) w hethert he t r i al courterr ed i n s tr i ki ng 4 B ol den’ s m edi cal bi l l s , w hi ch pr evi ous l y had bee n ent er ed i nt o evi dence . B eca us e w e f i nd th e se c o n d iss u e re q u ire s a n e w trial, w e d isc u ss it first. T he m edicalbil l

s. ¶9. A tt r i al , the def endant s argue d thatB ol den di d notes t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e ca s e. D ef endant s ’ cl ai m w as thatno caus al re l at i ons hi p had been es t abl i s hed betw een the medi cal b ill s m a rk e d a s E x h ib its 3 -1 0 a n d th e a c c id e n t at iss u e , b e c a u se n o e x p e rt h a d tes tified a s to a ca us al connec t i on. H ow ever , B ol den t es t i f i ed thathe w as i n good h eal t h befor e the acc i dentand thateac h of the medi cal bi l l s w as i ncurr ed as a di r ectand pr oxi m at e r es ul tof s eeki ng tr eatm entf

orthe i nj ur i es he sus t ai ned i n t he col l i s i on. T he tr i al court , per s uaded by the argu m ent of

the d efendan t s, struck t he m edical bil l s. ¶10. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 9- 119 cl ear l y s t at es , “Pr oof t hatm edi cal , hos pi t al , and d o c t o rb i l l s we r e p a i d o ri n c u r r e d b e c a u s e o f a n y i l l n e s s , d i s e a s e , ori n j u r y s h a l l b e p r i ma f aci e evi dence thats uch bi l l s s o pa i d ori ncurr ed w er e nec es s ary and r eas onabl e. ” M i s s i s s i ppi C od e A nn . § 4 1-9-119 (R ev . 2 00 8). T his C ou rthas held, “W hen a party takes the w i tness s t and and e xhi bi t s bi l l s f orexami nat i on by the courta nd t es t i f i es thats ai d bi l l s w er e i ncurr ed

### 5

as a r esul tof the inj uri es com plai ned of, they beco m e pri m a f aci e evi den ce that the b i l l s so pai d ori ncurr ed w er e nec es s ary and r eas onabl e. ” J a c ks o n v. B r u m

fi e ld , 458 So. 2d 736, 737 ( M i s s . 1984) . T he oppos i ng party m ay t hen “r ebutt he nece s s i ty and re as onabl enes s of the b ills b y p ro p e r e v id e n c e ,” if d e s ir e d . I

d . If th e o p p o sin g p a rty r e b u ts th e m e d ica l b ill s th ro u g h p ro p e r e v id e n c e , th e q u e s tio n is u ltim a te ly o n e fo r t h e ju ry . I d . Fur therm or e, bas ed on i t s hol di ng i n Jacks on , thi s C ou rthas hel d i ti s r ever s i bl e err ornott o al l ow di s put ed m ed ical bil ls t o b e su b m itted to the jury , w h en testi m o n y h as b ee n g iven tha t suc h b il ls are p a rt o f th e m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s in c u rr e d d u e to th e in ju ry a t is s u e . Moo dy v. R P M P i zza , 659 S o . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 8 5 -88 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). ¶11. B as ed on Bol den’ s unr ebutt ed t es t i m ony r egar di ng the i nj ur i es s us t ai ned and medi cal bi l l s i ncurr ed as a di r ectand proxi m at e r es ul tof s uch i nj ury, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 9- 119, and thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dent , w e f i nd thats tr i ki ng the medi cal bi l l s l abel ed Exhi bi t s 3- 10 w as re v ersible e rror. T h ese b il ls i n stead sh o u ld h av e b ee n su b m itted to the ju ry fo r th e jury ’s det erm i nat i on as t o w hethera ca us al conn e c t i on e xi s t e d b e tw een the ac ci dentand the medi cal bi l l s . T her ef

or e, thi s cas e mustbe r ever s ed and r emanded. E xper tt es t i m ony. ¶ 1 2 . A lth o u g h w e fin d the se c o n d issu e rais e d to b e d isp o sitiv e , w e a lso fin d it p ru d e n t to pr ovi de s om e gui dance t o the tr i al c our ta nd the part i es w i th r es pectt o the r emand. I ni t i al l y, w e w ill a d d re ss th e d e fe n d a n ts’ c o n ten tio n th a t, be c a u se th e p la in tif f fa iled to p ro ffe r its expert s ’ t es t i m ony and f ai l ed t o i ncl ude the tr i al tr ans cr i pti n the r ecor d, i tdi d notpr es erve f orappea l the i s s ue of

w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n s tr i ki ng i t s expert s . W e di s agr ee.

### 6

¶ 1 3 . T h e p u rp o se o f r e q u irin g a p ro ffe r o f th e s u b sta n c e o f e x c lu d e d te stim o n y is to e n a b le a r evi ew i ng courtt o det erm i ne w hetherthe t es t i m ony w as m at er i al , and w hetheri t s excl us i on a ff e c te d a s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t. See H ar r is v. Shi el

ds , 568 So. 2d 269, 272 ( M i s s . 1990) . H er e, b e c a u se o f a p u rp o rte d d isc o v e ry v io latio n , the trial c o u rt str u c k th e p lain tiff’s e x p e rts themsel ves and notthei rt es t i m ony. N ei therthe expe r t s ’ qual i f i cat i ons northe s ubs t ance of thei rt es t i m ony ( had they bee n c al l ed) w as i n que s t i on. W e have no need of a pr of f erof the s ubs t ance of

thei rt es t i m ony t o r evi ew the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on. ¶14. W e now addr es s the def endant s ’ cont ent i on thatthe tr i al courtpr oper l y s truck the plai nti f f’ s expert s . A tr i al courthas cons i der abl e di s cr et i on r egar di ng di s covery m att er s. D aw kins v. R edd Pest

Contr ol Co. , 607 So. 2d 1232, 1235 ( M i s s . 1992) . O urst and ard of r evi ew of

s anct i ons f

ordi s covery vi ol at i ons i s w hetherthe tr i al courtabuse d i t s di s cr et i on. Caracci v. I

nt ’l P aperCo. , 699 So. 2d 546, 556 ( M i s s . 1997) ( quot i ng Bar ne s v. Co n fide n tia l P a rty , 62 8 S o. 2d 28 3, 29 1 (M i ss. 19 93 )) . W e w i l l aff i rm “un l ess there i s a def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on t hatthe courtbel ow comm i t t ed a cl earerr orof j udgm enti n t he concl us i on i tr eac hed upon w ei ghi ng of r el evantf

act or s . ” Car acci , 699 So. 2d at556 ( quot i ng B ar nes , 628 So. 2d at291) . E xcl us i on of evi dence f ora di s covery vi ol at i on i s an extr eme m eas ur e, a nd l ow erc our t s s houl d e xer ci s e caut i on be f or e doi ng s o, be caus e our court s a r e “court s of

j us t i ce [ and] notof f

or m . ” See Car acci , 699 So. 2d at556 ( quot i ng Clark v. Mis s . P ow erCo. , 3 7 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 7 8 (M iss . 1 9 7 9 )); Mis s . P ow er& L i ght Co. v. L u m p k in , 725 So. 2 d 72 1, 734 (M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Mc Co llu m v. Fra n k lin , 608 So. 2d 6 9 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ) (ov erru led o n o ther g rou n d s)).Up on reman d o f a

cas e f or a ne w trial – ab sent a

dire ctivef

rom this C ourt t o th e co ntrary 5 – th e d eci sio n o f whe ther to re op endis co ve ry and oth er p retrial m att ersin a cas e is lef

t sq uarely wi thin th e so un d disc retion of thetri al c ourt, and

the tri al co urt ’s deci sio n, ab sent an ab us e o f t

hat discret io n, wi ll n otbe dis turbed. Bank s v. Hil l, 978 So. 2d 663, 665 (Miss. 2008). Se e a lso Scog gin s v. Ba

pti st M em’ l. H os p. -D eso to , 9 67 So . 2 d 6 46 , 6 48 (Mi ss. 20 07 ).



### 7 ¶15. B ear i ng i n m i nd thi s def er ent i al s t andar d of

r evi ew a nd the f

actthatthi s c as e i s bei ng r emanded f

ora ne w tr i al , w e choos e nott o addr es s w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n excl udi ng th e p lain tiff’s e x p e rts. In ste a d , w e d ire c t th a t, on re m a n d , the p a rties s h a ll b e a llo w e d to su p p lem en t th eir disco v ery resp o n ses w ith resp ec t to ex p ert w itn esse s. A n y o ther d isco v ery s hal l be conduc t ed onl y by or derof the tr i al court . A ddi t i onal l y, the part i es s houl d be 5
m i ndf ul of thei rcont i nui ng duty s eas onabl y t o s uppl e mentdi s c ov e ry r e s po ns e s . M i s s . R. Ci v. P . 2 6 (f) . ¶1 6 . In this ca se, the d efe n d an ts claim the p lai n ti ff w as w ith o u t auth o ri ty to p rov ide e x p ert opi ni ons and otherexperti nf or m at i on by r ef

er ence t o col l at er al document s , s uch as m edi cal re c o rd s. T h e trial c o u rt a g re e d a n d stru c k th e p lain tif f’ s e x p e rts. B e c a u se w e re v e rse th is cas e on othergrounds , w e dec l i ne t o addr es s the i s s ue of w hetherthe pl ai nt i f

f’ s m ethod of resp o n d ing to the d efe n d an t’ s ex p ert i n terrog atories w as a cc ep table. W e d o stat e h o w ev er, that, un der the p art i cularfact s of this case, the p l ai nti ff m ay av oid the risk o f an adv ers e rul i ng on the i s s ue by s i m pl y pr ovi di ng, w i thi n a r eas onabl e t i m e, s peci f i c w r i t t en r es pons es w hi ch do notr e qu i r e the de f e nd a ntt o r e f

e rt o the medi c a l r e c or ds orothe rc ol l a t e r al do cum ents .

### 8 CO NC L US I ON ¶1 7 . A cc o rdin g to the test im o n y , the m ed ical b il ls at issue w ere incu rred d u e to the in jury a t issu e . T h e re fo re , the trial c o u rt c o m m itted re v e rsib le e rro r b y re fu sin g to a llo w th e m to be s ubm i t t ed t o the j ury. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e and r emand f ora new tr i al , w i th di r ect i ons th a t th e p a rt ie s s h a ll b e a llo w e d – w ith in a tim e se t b y th e trial c o u rt – to su p p lem e n t th e ir dis cov ery r espon ses w i th respectt o ex pertw i tnesses. ¶ 1 8 . REVERSED AND REM AND ED . C A R L S O N , P .J ., R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , J J ., C O N C U R . KI TCHEN S , J . , CO NCU RS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON J OI NED BY C A R L S O N , P . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D P IE R C E , JJ . G R A V E S , P . J. , C O N C U R S IN P ART AND I N RE S UL T W I TH S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NE D I N P ART B Y K I T CH E NS , CH AN DL E R A ND P I E RC E , J J . W AL L E R, C. J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , CO NC UR RI NG : ¶ 1 9 . I w ri te s e p a ra te ly to a v o id a n y c o n f u s io n m a d e p o s s ib le b y m y v o te s in th is c a s e . I agr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s concl us i on thatthe tr i al j udge’ s de ci s i on t o e xcl ude cert ai n m edi cal bi l l s , namel y E xhi bi t s 3- 10, w as an abus e of di s cr et i on, and thati dent i f i cat i on of

t hat r ever s i bl e err ordi s pos es of thi s cas e. ¶ 2 0 . To t h e e x t e n tt h a tJ u s t i c e Gr a v e s d i s a g r e e s , I r e s p e c t f u l l y p a r tc o mp a n y wi th h i m. H ow ever , I agr ee w i th t he bul k of hi s opi ni on, i n t hathe fi nds thatthe def ens e w as obl i gat ed to p u rsue a m o ti o n to co m p el un d er R u le 37 o f th e M issi ssip p i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re ra th e r th a n a sk in g th e tri a l j u d g e to strik e th e p lain tiff’s e x p e rt w itn e ss e s fo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith R u le 2 6 . If th e e rro r id e n tified b y th e m a jo rity d id n o t d isp o se o f th is c a se , th e n I w o u ld

### 9

agree w i th Just i ce G raves that the tr i al co urt ’s d eci si on to stri ke exp ertw i tnesses w i tho ut f i rs t c o n sid e rin g a m o tio n to c o m p e l w o u ld re q u ire re v e rsa l. ¶ 2 1 . H o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e e rr o r a d d re s s e d b y th e m a jo ri ty , sta n d in g a lo n e , w a rra n ts re v e rsa l, I j o in Ju stic e G ra v e s’s o p in io n o n ly in p a rt. CARL S ON, P . J . , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. G R A V E S , P R E S ID IN G JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D IN RES ULT: ¶2 2 . T h e m ajority reso lves this app eal by decidi ng on ly the sec o n d issue raised b y B o lden ’s es t at e bec aus e i tdeems thi s i s s ue di s pos i t i ve of the appe al . A s a pr act i cal m at t er, I do not agr ee thatthe s econd i s s ue i s di s pos i t i ve. T her ef or e, I am com pel l ed t o w r i t e s epar at el y. ¶2 3 . T h e m a

jority stat es th at “w e c h o o se n o t t o ad d ress w h ethe r th e tri al co u rte rre d in e x c lu d in g th e p lain tiff’s e x p e rts.” T h e m a jo rity fu rth e r sta tes th a t “[i]n ste a d , w e d ire c t th a t, u p o n re m a n d , the p a rties sh a ll b e a llo w e d to s u p p le m e n t th e ir d isc o v e ry re sp o n se s w ith resp ec t t o ex p ert w itn esse s. ” T h is directi v e is t an tam o u n t to a fin d ing that the d isco v ery re sp o n se s in q u e stio n a re d e fic ien t an d , ac c o rd in g ly , m u st b e s u p p lem e n ted . H o w e v e r, in m a k in g th is fin d in g a n d re a c h in g it s c o n c lu sio n , th e m a jo rity ign o re s th e fa c t th a t, i f a p a rty bel i eves that an op po nen t ’s dis cov ery r espon ses ar e def i ci ent , the appr opr i at e vehi cl e thr ough w h ic h th a t p a rt y m a y s e e k re lie f i s a m o tio n to c o m p e l. See M i s s . R . C i v. P. 37. ¶ 2 4 . T h e d e fe n d a n ts in th is c a se d id n o t file a m o tio n to c o m p e l. In ste a d , the d e fe n d a n ts fi led a m o ti o n to stri k e B o lden ’s e x p ert d esig n ati o n s fo r fail u re to c o m p ly w ith R u le 26 (b)(4 ). T h e d efe n d an ts argu ed that B o lden h ad “ n o t pro v ided ‘the su b ject m att er o n w h ich th e e x p ertIt a pp ear s f rom thereco rd th at th e def

en dants nev er ac tuallydesi gn ate d anyexpe rts . Whe n 6 thede fend ants mov ed

to s tri keBo lden’s expe rts , they a lso req ue ste d an e xtens ion

of time to de signate def

en se e xp ert s. 

### 10 is ex p ec ted to test if

y , an d t o st ate th e su b stan ce of th e fac ts an d o p inion s to w h ich th e e x p ert i s expec t ed t o t es t i f

y and a sum m ary of the gr ounds foreac h opi ni on. ’ ” See M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 2 6 (b )(4 )(A )(i). B o ld e n filed a re sp o n se in w h ich h e sta ted th a t th e m e d ica l ex p e rts des i gnat ed w er e B ol den’ s tr eat i ng phys i ci ans and thatthey had notpr ovi ded expe r topi ni ons beyond thos e r ef

l ect ed i n B ol den’ s m edi cal r ecor ds . B ol den mai nt a i ne d thathe had c om pl i ed w ith R u le 26 (b)(4 ) an d furthe r arg u ed that if the tri al co u rtd ec ided to s trik e h is ex p ert des i gnat i ons , then the tr i al courtsho uld al s o s tr i ke the def endant s ’ expertdes i gnat i ons 6 becau se the d efendan t s’ exp ert s had n ot exam i ned B olden or produce d any m edical recor ds, rep o rt s, o p inion s, o r cu rri cu la vitae. T h e tria l cou rtd ec ided to stri k e b o th p arti es’ e x p ert des i gnat i ons f

orf ai l ur e t o compl y w i th R ul e 26( b) ( 4) . T he t r i al courtdi d notel abor at e any fur ther on it s r at i on al e fori t s deci si on t o st ri ke the exp ertdesi gn at i on s. ¶25. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 37 s et s out the pr oper pr ocedur e t o f ol l ow w hen a party f i nds thatanotherparty’ s di s covery r es pons e i s i nadequa t e. T he party di s s at i s f i ed w i th the di s covery r es pons e may f i l e a mot i on t o com pel w i th t he t r i al court . M i s s . R . C i v. P . 37 (a) (2) . If

the tr i al cou rtdecides t o g rantthe m oti on t o co m pel and t he p arty w ho se co n d u ct ne ce ssit ated the m o ti o n fail s to c o m p ly w ith the c o u rt ’s ord er, th en the tri al co u rt m ay de term ine w h at san cti o n s, i f any , are j u st an d ap p rop ri ate. M iss. R . C iv. P . 3 7 (b )(2 ). T h e c o m m e n t to R u le 3 7 sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt:

### 11

T he st atutory rul e requi res that each fai l ure t o respon d to a di scovery reque st b e d e a lt w ith b y a s e p a ra te m o tio n ; th e s u c c e ss fu l re su lt t o th e first m o tio n is u su a lly a n o rd e r to c o m p ly w ith th e d isc o v e ry re q u e st. S a n c tio n s c u sto m a rily ar e no timpose d unt i l af t erther e has been a r ef

us al t o compl y w i th a s econd o rde r. M i s s . R . C i v. P . 3 7 cm t . T hi s C our thas hel d thatR ul e 37 det ai l s the pr operpr ocedur e f or o b ta in in g s a tis fa c to ry d is c o v e ry re s p o n s e s . See, e. g. , Car acci v. I nt ’l P aperCo. , 699 So. 2d 5 4 6 , 5 5 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Fo rd Mo tor Co . v. T

en n in , 9 6 0 S o . 2 d 3 7 9 , 3 9 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). In Car acci , thi s C our ts t at ed: U n d er o u r ru les o f civ il p roc ed u re, fail u re to m ak e o r co o p era te i n d isco v ery s houl d f i r s tbe r es ol ved by maki ng a mot i on i n t he pr opercour tr eques t i ng an o rd e r c o m p e lli n g su c h d isc o v e ry . See M . R . C . P. 37( a) ( 2) . T he r emedy f or f ai l i ng t o compl y w i th the di s cover y r eques t s w hen the tr i al courtgr ant s an or dert o c om pel f

al l s unde rM . R . C . P. 37( a) ( 4) i n the f or m of a w ar di ng t he m o v in g p a rt y th e e x p e n s e s fo r s u c h m o tio n . See M .R .C .P . 3 7 ; January v. B ar nes , 621 So. 2d 915, 922 ( M i s s . 1992) . A f t ers uch an or dert o compel has b e e n g ra n ted u n d e r M .R .C .P . 3 7 (a )(2 ), an d th e p a rty o rd e re d to a n sw e r fa ils t o r e s po nd , the n the r e medy m a y b e s a nc t i on s i n a c c or da nc e w i th M . R. C. P. 3 7 (b ). See 8 W r i ght& M i l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e: C i vi l § 2050 (19 7 0 ). Car acci , 699 So. 2d at557. T he def endant s i n Car acci

w ai t ed unt i l tr i al t o obj ectt o the plai nti ff’s dis cov ery vi olat i on s and ask ed the tri al cou rtto d en y e x pertt est i m on y as a s a n c tio n . I

d. T h is C o u rt s tate d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t “ w a s re q u ire d to a sk th e c irc u it co u rt to compel Car acc i [ i . e. , the pl ai nt i f f ] t o c om pl y w i th di s covery r eques t s . ” I d. T hi s C our tw ent o n to fin d th a t th e trial c o u rt a b u s e d it s d isc re tio n b y g ra n tin g th e d e fe n d a n t’s re q u e st to e x c lu d e th e te s tim o n y b e c a u s e th e s a n c tio n w a s o v e rl y h a rs h . I d. at558- 59. ¶26. A s i n Car acci , the pr ocedur e s etouti n R ul e 37 w as notf ol l ow ed i n thi s cas e. I ns t ead of f i l i ng a mot i on t o compel an ade quat e r es pons e t o thei ri nt err ogat ory s eeki ng i nf or m at i on

### 12

reg ard ing B o lden ’s ex p erts, the d efe n d an ts f il ed a m o ti o n to stri k e B o lden ’s ex p ert des i gnat i ons , pr es um abl y as a s anct i on f orB ol den’ s f

ai l ur e t o pr ovi de di s covery r es pons es t o the def

endant s ’ s at i s f

act i on. B ol den then f

i l ed a r es pons e, i n w hi ch he as ked thatthe tr i al cou rts tri ke t he defend ants ’ exp ertdesi gn at i on s i f i tchose t o stri ke h i s expertdesi gn at i on s. T he tr i al courtdeci ded t o s tr i ke both part i es ’ expertdes i gnat i ons w i thoutf i r s tor der i ng ei ther p arty to c o m p ly w ith the o ther p arti es’ d isco v ery req u ests. T h is C o u rtrev iew s a tri al co u rt ’s d e c is io n re g a rd in g s a n c tio n s fo r d is c o v e r y v io la tio n s fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See, e. g. , Jones v. Jones , 995 So. 2d 706, 711 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng T in n o n v. Ma rtin , 716 So. 2d 604, 611 ( M i s s . 1998) ) . T he tr i al courtabu sed i t s di s cr et i on by f ai l i ng t o f

ol l ow the pr oper pr ocedur es s etouti n R ul e 37. ¶27. B eca us e the t ri al co urtd i d no tf ol l ow the pr operpr ocedur es r egar di ng di s coveryr el at ed s anct i ons s etouti n Rul e 37, f i ndi ngs f ourand f i ve of the tr i al court ’ s O r derG r ant i ng and / orD enyi ng the Part i es ’ V ar i ous M ot i ons , dat ed A pr i l 27, 2007, gr ant i ng both part i es’ m ot i on s t o s tr i ke, s houl d be vac at ed. U pon r emand, I w oul d or derthatdi s covery be r eopene d and that , i f

the def endantm ai nt ai ns thatthe di s covery r espon se i s def i ci ent , t hen th e d e fe n d a n t sh a ll fil e a m o tio n to c o m p e l. F u rth e r, if the d e fe n d a n t w ish e s to d e sig n a te expert s , then i tm ay. KI TCHEN S , CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , J O I N T H I S OPI NI ON I N PART.