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 5 - I A- 0 0 3 2 1 - S CT I S AA C K . BYR D, J

R. , KA T RI NA M . GI BB S , AN D BYR D, GI

BB S& M

AR T I N, P L L C f / k / a BYR D & ASS OC I ATES, PLLC

v. W I L L I E J . BO W I E, I NDI V I DUA L L Y, AN

D C HA R L ESB R OWN, I

ND I V I DU A L L Y, B EI

NG T HE S OL E WRONG FU

L DE AT H BENE FICI

AR I ESOF LOI SBROW

N, DECEAS

ED
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 27/ 2005 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S
. RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : P R E C IO U S T Y R O N E M A R T IN ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : EDD I E J AC OB AB DEEN S T E P HE N L AM AR GOWAN NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - LE GAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 06/ 2006 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. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶1
. T h is i n terl o cu toryap p ea l st em s fro m n u m ero u s m o ti o n s, inclu d ing a p arti al su m m ary ju d g m e n t, i n a leg a l m a lp ra c tice c a se w h ich c a s e a r o s e a f ter th is C o u rt h a n d e d d o w n its opi ni on i n t he m edi cal m al pr act i ce c as e B ow i e v. Mont f or t Jones Mem or i al

Hos pital , 861 So
. 2 d 1 0 3 7 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 3)
. I n B o w ie , t hi s C our taff i r m ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorofT he courtpaper s do noti ndi cat e that an o ri gi nal compl ai ntw as everfi l ed i n t he 1 t r i al cour tcas e. H al l ’s fi rs tnam e has v a ri ou s spel l i ng s as “C hri sty ” and “K ri st i e. ” W e w i l l use 2
“ C h risty ” u n les s o th e rw ise in d ica ted in a q u o ted p a ss a g e f ro m th e h e a rin g tra n sc rip t. C ouns el forB ow i e gr ant ed the D efe ndant s a 20 dayext ens i on. 3 2 M on t fortJones M em ori al H ospit al (M on t fort ). T he tr i al cou rtdeter m i ned t hat the P l ai nti ffs, B o w ie a n d B r o w n (c o llec tiv e ly , “B o w ie” ) f a iled to tim e lyd e sig n a te a n e x p e rt f o r th e ir

m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice c laim ; th e re f o re , su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s g ra n ted b e c a u se B o w ie c o u ld

n o t m a k e a p r i m a f

a c ie m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e c a s e w ith o u t th is e x p e rt
. Id
. at1043. T he att o rne y s rep rese n ti n g B o w ie w ere K atri n a M
. G ibb s (G ibb s) an d Isaa c K
. B yrd (B yrd). ¶2. Fol l ow i ng t hi s C our t ’ s rul i ng i n B o w ie , B ow i e fi l ed a l egal m al pract i ce case against G i bb s, B yr d, and B yr d, G i bbs and M ar t i n, PL L C , f/ k/ a B yr d & A s s oci at es , PL L C ( t he

“ F i r m ” ) ( c o l l e c t i v e l y k n o w n a s t h e “ D e f e n d a n t s ” ) i n t h e C i r c u i tC o u r to f R a n k i n C o u n t y, M i s s i s s i ppi
. T he fi r s t amended compl ai nt w as fi l ed on A pr i l 29, 2004. O n M ay8, 2004, 1 G i bbs w as s er ved w i t h pr oces s . O n M ay10, 2004, C hr i s t yH al l , B yr d’ s s ecr et ary , w as s er ved

w i t h pr oces s forB yr d and the Fi r m . O n J une 8, 2004, G i bbs , B yr d and the Fi r m fi l ed a j oi nt 2 A n sw er. 3 ¶3. O n O ct ober 19, 2004, B ow i e fi l ed a m ot i on for par t i al s um m ary j udgm entcl ai m i ng, i nt eral i a, t hatt he D efe ndant s fai l ed t o r es pond t o r eques t s foradmi s s i ons . I n r es pons e, t he D efe ndant s fi l ed (1) a re s pons e t o t he m ot i on for par t i al s um m ary j udgm ent , ( 2) a mot i on for di s qu a l i f i c a t i o n o f

At t o r n e yEd d i e Abd e e n ( c o u n s e l f o rBowi e ) , ( 3 ) a mot i o n t o s t ay3

p ro c e e d in g s, a n d (4 ) a m o tio n to w ith d ra w d e f a u lt res p o n se s to p lain tiff ’s f irst se t o f re q u e sts for adm i ssi on s. ¶4. T he t r i al cour t conduct ed a hear i ng on t hes e f o u r m o ti o n s o n Jan u ary 4 , 2 005. F o ll o w ing this he aring th e tr ial co u rtg ran ted th e p lai n ti ff ’s m o ti o n fo r pa rt ial su m m ary ju d g m e n t o n th e iss u e o f n e g lig e n c e ; d e n ied th e m o tio n to s ta y; d e n ie d th e m o tio n to dis qu al i fyA bd een; and denied t he m oti on t o w i t hd raw defa ultres po nses t o p l ai nti ff’s fi rs t
s etof r eques t s foradmi s s i ons . I n t he or der , t he tr i al cour tal s o gr ant ed ce r t i fi cat i on foran interl o cu toryap p ea l on the ru li n g s o f th e f o u r m o ti o n s. T h is C o u rtg ran ted in terl o cu tory
a p p e a l. See M
. R
. A
. P
. 5. T he D efen dan t s r ai se t he fo l l ow i ng i ssues: I S S UES I . W he t he r t he Tri al C our t Err e d by G r ant i ng Par t i al Sum m ar y Judgment on t he I s s ue of N egl i gence and by D eny i ng t he M ot i on t o W i t hdraw D ef aul t R es ponses to R eq u est for A d m i ssi on s. I I . W he t he r t he Tr i a l Cour t Er r e d b y Den yi ng t he M o t i o n t o St a y. I I I . W he t he r t he Tri al C our t Err e d by D e nyi ng t he M ot i on t o Di s qual i f y A bde e n. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 5
. T h is C o u rt re v ie w s m o tio n s f o r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . B ro o k s v . R o b e rts , 882 So. 2d 229, 231- 32 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng B ow i e v. Mon t fort Jo n es Mem 'l

Hosp . , 861 So. 2d 1037, 1040 ( M i s s . 2003) )
. A l l evi dence i s t o be vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonm o v in g p a rt y . Id
. at 23 2
. T h e d ec isi o n o f th e tri al co u rtw il l on lyb e re v erse d if "the re a re i nd eed tr i able i ssues of fact. " Id
.4

¶6
. R u le 56 (c) o f th e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f C ivil P roc ed u re p rov ides that su m m ary j udgm ents hal l be gr ant ed bya courti f " t he pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t oget herw i t h aff i davi t s , i f any , s how t hat t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue
a s to a n ym a ter ial f

a c t..
.. " M .R .C .P . 5 6 (c ); s ee Sauci erex r el . Sauci erv. B iloxiR eg’l Med. Ctr. , 708 So. 2d 1351, 1354 ( M i s s . 1998)
. T he m ovi ng par t y has t he bur den of de m ons t r at i ng t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , w hi l e the non- m ovi n g p arty sh o ul d be gi ven the b en ef ito f e v eryrea so n ab le do u b t. Tu c k e r v . Hin d s C o u n ty , 55 8 S o. 2d 86 9, 87 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 0 ). See a l

so He ig le v . H

e ig le , 7 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ). A f a c t is m a ter ial if

it “t ends t o r es ol ve anyof t he i s s ues pr oper l yr ai s ed byt he part i es . ” P al m erv. A nders on In firm a ry B en ev o len t A ss’n , 6 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 9 0 , 7 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). ¶7. “ If, in th i s v i ew , t here i s n o gen uine is sue of m at eri al fact and , t he m ov i ng p a rty is

e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law , su m m a ryju d g m e n t sh o u ld f o rth w it h b e e n ter e d in hi s favor
. O t herw i s e, t he m ot i on s houl d be deni ed. ” W ill ia m so n e x re l. W ill ia m so n v . K

e ith , 786 So. 2d 390, 393 ( M i s s . 2001)
. “I s s ues of fac t s uffi ci ent t o r equi r e deni al of a mot i on for

s um m ary j udgm ent obvi ous l y ar e pr es ent w her e one par t y s w ear s t o one ver s i on of t he mat t er i n i s s ue and a not hers ay s t he oppos i t e. ” Tucker , 558 So. 2d at872. O f i m por t ance her e i s t he l anguage of t he rul e author i zi ng s um m aryj udgm ent ' w her e t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac t
. ' T he pr es ence of fac ti s s ues i n t he r ecor d does notper s e ent i t l e a par t y t o avoi d s um m ary j udgm ent
. T he cour tm us tbe co n v ince d tha tt he fa ctual i s s ue i s a mat er i al one, one that m at t er s i n a n o u t c o me d e t e r mi n a t i v e s e n s e . . . t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a h undr ed cont es t ed i s s ues of fa ctw i l l nott hw ar ts um m aryj udgm entw her e ther e i s no g e n u in e d isp u te r e g a rd in g th e m a ter ial iss u e s o f f a c t.5

Sim m ons v. T

homps on Mach. of

Mis s . , I nc. , 631 So. 2d 798, 801 ( M i s s . 1994) ( ci t i ng Shaw

v . B u rc h fie ld , 481 So. 2d 247, 252 ( M i s s . 1985) )
. T he evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed i n t he l i ght

m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . See R i chm ond v. B enchm ar k Constr. Cor p. , 692 S o . 2 d 6 0 , 6 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); R u ssel l v. O rr , 7 0 0 S o . 2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); N or ther n E lec. Co. v. P hil

li ps , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); S im m o n s, 6 3 1 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 2 ; Tucker , 558 So. 2d at872. ¶8. T o avoi d s um m ary j udgm ent , t he non-movi ng par t ym us tes t abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of

m a te ri a l f

a c t w ith in th e m e a n s a llo w a b le u n d e r t h e R u le
. Ri c hm ond , 692 So. 2d at61 ( ci t i ng Lyle v . Mladini c h, 584 So. 2d 397, 398 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. "I f anyt r i abl e i s s ues of fa ctexi s t , t he l ow ercour t ' s deci s i on t o gr ant s um m ary j udgm entw i l l be r ever s ed. O t herw i s e the dec i s i on i s aff i r m ed. ” Ri c hm ond , 692 So. 2d at61. DI S CU S S I ON I . P art i al Sum m ary Judgm ent and M ot i on t o W i t hdraw R es ponses t o R eques t s f or A dm i s s i ons A . Se r vi c e of

R e que s t s f

or A dm i s s i ons ¶ 9
. T h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f B o w i e o n t h e i s s u e o f l i a b i l i t y. T he tr i al cour t f

o u n d t he D efe ndant s w er e s er ved w i t h pr oces s conce r ni ng t he r eques tfor admi s s i ons and deni ed t he mot i on t o s etas i de admi s s i ons . T he tr i al cour ts t at ed: [I ]t appear s t o the C our tt hatt heyw er e s er ved – B yr d – B yr d l aw fi r m and K atr i na G i bbs w er e s er ved. N o r es pons e w as fi l ed. I under s t and w haty ou s ay M r . M ar t i n [couns el for t he D efe ndant s ] , about w hy w oul d I fi l e an a ns w erand notfi l e a m ot i ons r es pons es [s i c]
. I ’ ve s een i thappen a l otof t i m es . W i t h – M a yb e th e yw e re o v e rl o o k e d , I d o n ’t k n o w . B u t it d o e s s h o w a p a tte rn , I6

t hi nk. T he pl ai nt i ff’ s M ot i on forPar t i al Sum m ary J udgm ent w i l l be gr ant ed a s to th e n e g lig e n c e is s u e b u t d e n ie d a s to th e m o n e ta ry v a lu e . . . . ¶ 1 0
. T h e D e f

e n d a n ts a rg u e th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y d e n y in g th e m o tio n to w ith d ra w d e f a u lt

res po nses t o reque st s for ad m i ssi on s. T he D efen dan t s ar gu e t heynev er r ecei ved t he requ est for admi s s i ons . G i bbs , B yr d and Pr eci ous M ar t i n ( M ar t i n) , couns el for G i bbs , B yr d and the F i rm , al l gav e affidavi t s st at i ng t heynev er r ecei ved anyrequest s for adm i ssi on s. ¶ 1 1
. T h e trial c o u rt p a p e rs c o n tain p re p rin ted su m m o n se s. T h e su m m o n se s sta te, in p a rt: N ot i ce i s al s o h erebygi ven of s er vi ce of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ Fi r s tR eques t s for Pr oduct i on of D o cument s Pr opounded t o D efe ndantand r es pons es m us tbe m a iled o r d e liv e re d w ith in f o rty -f iv e (4 5 ) d a y s f

ro m th e d a te o f d e liv e ry o f th is s u m m o n s a n d d is c o v e ry. T he sum m on ses for G i bb s and B yrd al so h a d th e w ords “Fir stS etof Int err og at ori es & R e q u e sts f

o r A d m iss io n s” h a n d w ritten a ro u n d th e n o tice p a ra g ra p h
. T h e D e f e n d a n ts c laim t heydi d notknow aboutt he r eques t for admi s s i ons unt i l B ow i e fi l ed the mot i on forpar t i al

su m m a ryju d g m e n t. ¶12. H ow ever , dur i ng t he hea r i ng, a number of w i t nes s es t es t i fi ed aboutt he i s s ue of r ece i pt of t he r eques t s foradmi s s i ons . G aryW i ndham, the pr oces s s er ver , s t at ed thathe s er ved G i bbs p e r s o n a l l y , a n d s e r v e d Chr i s t yHal l , By r d ’ s s e c r e t a r y . On c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i on, W i nd h a m c o u ld no ti den t i fyw ho han d w rot e t he w ords “Fir stS etof Int err og at ori es & R eques t s forA dm i s s i ons ” on the su m m ons es . H e al s o di d notknow w hethert hos e w or ds

w e re o n th e s u m m o n s e s a t th e tim e h e s e rv e d th e s u m m o n s e s . L at er , he s t at ed thathe s er ved

w hat everw as w r i t t en on the r etur ns . T he pr epr i nt ed proof s of s er vi ce s i gned byW i ndham7

s how ed thatt he s um m ons es , amended compl ai nt , i nt err ogat o r i e s a nd r eques t s foradmi s s i ons
w ere serv ed
. T h e p roo fs o f se rvice w ere co m p let elytyp ed , u n li k e the su m m o n ses. T h ere
w as no h and w ri t t en ad dit i on con cerni ng t he requ est s for adm i ssi on s on the r eturns. ¶ 1 3
. S u z a n n e K e y s, a n a tto rn e yth a t w o rk e d f o r th e F irm , tes tifie d sh e w a s u n f a m ili a r w ith t he ca s e, butdi d par t i ci pat e i n comm uni cat i ons r egar di ng i t , as evi dence d by emai l s betw een at t or neyA bdeen a nd her s el f. O ne of the e -m ail s , dat ed M ay13, 2004, fr om A bdeen, cont ai ned att achme n t s whi c h i n c l u d e d th e r e q u e s t s foradmi s s i ons , w hi ch w er e al s o di s cus s ed in th e tex t o f th e e m a il. M o re o v e r, K e y s sta ted th a t sh e re c e iv e d th e M a y1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , e-m a il, al t hough s he cl ai m s s he di d not open any of t he at t achment s . I n an emai l dat ed M ay27, 2004, K ey s as ked A bdeen, per G i bbs r eques t , for an ext ens i on t o fi l e an ans w er . I n an emai l dat ed M ay 28, 2004, A bdeen confi r m ed a t el ephone conver s at i on betw een K ey s and A b deen

re g a rd in g a n a g re e m e n t to g ra n t a n e x ten sio n to f ile a re sp o n siv e p lea d in g a n d re sp o n se s to d i s c o v e r y: T hi s emai l w i l l confi r m t he di s cus s i on w e j us thad w her ei n I agr eed that K a trin a G ib b s, M r. B yrd , an d th e B yrd f irm c a n h a v e a n a d d iti o n a l 2 0 d a y s to s er v e a responsi ve pl eadi ng i n t he r efe r ence d cas e. T he r es pons es t o t he di s coverys er ved w i t h t he compl ai ntw i l l be s er ved att he s ame t i m e the ans w er s w i l l be due. A tt he hea r i ng on B ow i e’ s m ot i on forpar t i al s um m ary j udgm ent , K ey s admi t t ed t o r ece i vi ng th is e m a il. ¶14
. T h e trial cou rtheld an ev i den t i aryheari ng pu rs uan tt o the D efen dan t ’s m oti on to

w ith d raw d ef

au lt resp o n ses p u rsua n t to M
. R
. C
. P
. 3 6 (b). T h e re co rd re flec ts th at t h e a g en t’ s8

p r o c e s s r e tu r n s s h o w e d s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e c o rr e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n K e ys and A bdeen ref

lects not i ce t o t he D efe ndant s . T he D efe ndant s ’ m eage rpr oof orr eas ons g iven to the tr ial co u rtfo r t h eir failure to re sp o n d to B o w ie’s re q u e s t fo r ad m issi o n s w ere
s oundl yr ej ect ed. T he evi dence s ubm i t t ed t o t he t r i al j udge w as r eas onabl e and cer t ai nl ynot

m a n if e s tly w ro n g u n d e r th e a p p lic a b le s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . See P u n zo v . J a c k so n Co u n ty , 8 6 1 S o . 2 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). T h is C o u rt is thu s d u ly b o u n d to r esp ec t the l o w er c o u rt ’s fi nd i n g s o f f

a c t whe n t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d b y r e a s o n a b l e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d a nd ar e not

m a n if e s tly w ro n g . See A l

li ed Steel

Cor p. v. Cooper , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). H er e, t he tr i al j udge di d not abus e hi s di s cr et i on, and the evi dence r eas onabl ys uppor t s t he grant of sum m aryj ud gm ent on t he i ssue t he defen dan t s’ neg l i gen ce based on t he d efen dan t s’ fai l ure t o respon d to pl ai nti ff’s r equ estfor adm i ssi on s. B . N egl i gence as a M at t er of L aw ¶15. N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he defenda n ts’ fa il ur e t o pr oper l y r es pond t o B ow i e’ s r eques tfor

a d m iss io n s, w e f

in d th e d e f

e n d a n ts w e re n e g lig e n t as a m a tt e r o f law . A s th e d e f

e n d a n ts
corr ect l yas s er ti n t hei rbr i ef, t o pr evai l , one cl ai m i ng negl i gence i n a l egal m al pr act i ce a ct i on
m us tpr ove bya pr eponder ance of t he evi den ce (1) the exi s t ence of an a t t or ney - cl i ent

r el at i ons hi p, ( 2) negl i gence on t he partof t he l aw y eri n handl i ng hi s cl i ent ’ s aff ai r s entrus t ed to h im , a n d (3 ) p ro x im a te c a u s e o f th e in ju ry. W il bo u rn v. S ten n ett

, W il kinson & W

ard , 687 S o. 2d 12 05 , 12 15 (M i ss. 19 96 ); Hicko x v. H ol lem an , 502 So. 2d 626, 633 ( M i s s . 1987) (sup erse d ed o n o ther g rou n d s ). M o reo v er, “[c ]l ea rl yestab li sh ed law p rov ides that ex p ert9

t es t i m onyi s nece s s aryt o es t abl i s h t he br ea ch of a dutyof ca r e i n a cl ai m of l egal

ma l p r a c t i c e. ” L a n e v . O ustalet , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 , 9 9 (M iss 2 0 0 4 ); H i ckox v. Hol

lem an , 502 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 5 ; D e an v. Conn , 4 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). ¶1 6
. H o w ev er, this C o u rt h a s c a rv ed o u t so m e ex ce p ti o n s to the g en era l rule that ex p ert t es t i m onyi s req u ir ed in a l egal m al pr act i ce c l ai m . A ppl i cabl e t o t he ca s e atbari s t he except i on found i n H

i ckox , 502 So. 2d at635. T her e, t hi s C our thel d an expe r ti s not
re q u ire d “ w h e n th e a tto rn e y ’s c o n d u c t is n e g lig e n t as a m a tter o f law a n d th e p lain tiff

is ent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed ver d ict o n l i abi l i t y . ” Id
. I n H i ckox , this C o u rth eld th e a tt o rne y ’s fai l ur e t o fi l e s ui tpr i or t o t he expi r at i on of t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons cons t i tut ed negl i gence
as a m at t er of l aw , w her e t he att or neyadmi t t ed he ne verper for m ed r es ear ch t o det er m i ne t he

n a tu re o f H ic k o x ’s c la im
. Id
. at636. See a l so T homps on v. E r ving’s H atcher i es, I

nc. , 186 S o . 2 d 7 5 6 , 7 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 6 6 ). ¶17. I n di s cus s i ng t he nee d forexpert s forl egal m al pr act i ce a ct i ons , w e s t at ed: M or eover , at t or ney s i nvol ved i n m al pr act i ce a ct i ons m us tal w ay s r emem ber t her e i s a pr agmat i c diff ere nce be tw een the tr i al of ot herpr ofes s i onal m al pr act ic e ca s es and a l egal m al pr act i ce c as e. I n t he form ercl as s , t he l aw y er s and j udges ar e l aym en. I n pr ofes s i onal m al pr act i ce cas es , exce pt i ng extr eme cas es , w e r el yupon expert s forgui dan ce . T he att or neyw ho fi nds hi m s el f t he def

endanti n a l egal m al pr act i ce cas e, how ever , has a j udge and the t ri al at t orney s w ho are al readyexp ert s. H i ckox , 50 2 S o. 2d at 63 6. F urt herm ore, “[i ]tdo es not r equ i re expertt est i m on yt o est abli sh t he negl i gence of an at t or neyw ho i s i gnor antof t he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons orw ho10

s i t s i dl ybyand ca u ses t he cl i entt o l os e the val ue of hi s cl ai m forr el i ef. ” Id
. ( quot i ng G eor ge v. Caton , 9 3 N
. M
. 3 7 0 , 6 0 0 P
. 2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 9 (N
. M
. C t. A p p . 1 9 7 9 )). ¶ 1 8
. In th is c a se , th e q u e stio n b e c o m e s w h e th e r B o w ie’ s cla im o f leg a l m a lp ra c tice c a lls fo r ex p ert t esti m o n yin o rde r to estab li sh that the D ef en d an ts brea ch ed their du tyo f c are . In B o w ie , t he D efe ndant s nei t hert i m el yfi l ed a de s i gnat i on of an e x p ert , norpr ovi ded any

e x c u s e a s to w h yth e yd id n o t tim e ly f ile th e d e s ig n a tio n . B o w ie , 8 6 1 S o . 2 d a t1 0 4 2
. We fi nd t he fa ct s i n thi s cas e ar e ana l ogous t o t he fa ct s i n H i ckox . A n a tto rn e yw h o f a ils to des i gnat e an e xper tbya court - m andat ed dea dl i ne and doe s notpr ovi de anyr eas on fordoi ng
s o, i s n egl i gentas a mat t erof l aw , as w as t he att or neyi n H i ckox . T h e re f

o re , B o w ie is

e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n ta s t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ l i a b i l i t y. I I . M ot i on t o St ay ¶19. T he D efe ndant s arg u e the tr ial co u rt erred b y deny i ng a mot i on t o s t ay . T he D efe ndant s ’ l egal m al pr act i ce i ns ur ance carr i er i s A m er i can N at i onal L aw y ers In sur ance R ec ipro ca l ( A N L IR ). O n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 4 , A N L IR w as p lace d into li q u idation b ythe C h an ce ry C our t o f D av idson Count y , T ennes s ee. Fol l ow i ng t he pr ocee di ng i n T ennes s ee, t he D e f e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n f

o r sta yw ith th e trial c o u rt c iti n g th a t th e le g a l m a lp ra c tice su it ( 1) shoul d be s t ay ed unt i l A N L I R ’ s as s et s ar e di s t r i but ed; and ( 2) no di s coveryand pr os ecut i o n o f the clai m s houl d go for w ar d beca us e the D efe ndant s w oul d notbe i n a pos i t i on t o defe nd t hemsel ves w hi ch w oul d r es ul ti n undue pr ej udi ce.11

¶20. T he D efe ndant s ar gue B ow i e’ s s ui t w oul d have a di r ectand s ubs t ant i al adver s e eff ect on t he i ns ur ance company ’ s abi l i t yt o under go a s ucce s s ful l i qui dat i on. D efe ndant s r el yon A r n o ld v . G a r lo c k

, I n c ., 278 F. 3d 426, 434 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) , for t he pre m i s e t hatpr ocee di ngs t hat“r el at e t o” a ba nkrupt cyact i on i ncl ude ci vi l s ui t s betw een thi r d par t i es w hi ch have an eff ect on t he bankrupt cyes t at e. T her e i s “r el at ed t o” s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on w hen t he out come of a pr ocee di ng betw een tw o non- d eb tors m ayi m pactt he debt or ’ s bankrupt cy
es t at e. Id . a t 4 4 1
. ¶21. H ow ever , B ow i e as s ert s that the D ef en d an ts e rron eous l yar gue a “ r el at ed t o” j ur i s di ct i on pr ovi s i on of t he U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cyC ode, 28 U
. S. C
. Sect i on 1334, fort he fi r s t t i m e on appea l
. N evert hel es s , B ow i e ar gues t hatdom es t i c i ns ur er s ar e notcapa bl e of b e in g a “ d e b to r” u n d e r th e b a n k ru p tcy c o d e 1 1 U .S .C . S e c tio n 1 0 9 (b ), b u t ra th e r th e ir in s o lv e n c y is b a s e d o n s ta te la w . I n r e A dvanced CellularSys tem s , 235 B
. R
. 713, 717- 18 (B an k r. D
. P u erto R ico 1 9 9 9 ). ¶22. B ow i e al s o ar gues t hat A N L I R ’ s T ennes s ee cour t or der does not pr ovi ded for a s t ay
o f li ti g ati o n ag ains t i ts po li cyh o lders . A l s o, M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 83- 23- 135 pr ovi des

a six m o n th st a y f

o r th e M iss iss ip p i In su ra n c e G u a ra n tyA ss o c iatio n (M IG A ) in o rd e r to p rov ide a d ef

en se to a c o v ere d claim w ith in the m ea n ing o f th e c o d e se c tio n . H o w ev er, B ow i e cont ends t hi s pr ovi s i on is n o t ap pl i cabl e bec aus e A N L I R pol i cyhol der s ar e not
cover ed o r p r o t e c t e d u n d e r M I GA
. Bowi e p r o v i d e d a n a f f i d a v i t o f J o h n W e e k s , t he

e x e c u tiv e d ire c to r o f

M IG A w h ich sta ted in p a rt:12

I h e re b yc e rtify th a t, ac c o rd in g to th e M iss iss ip p i In su ra n c e D e p a rtm e n t, A m er i can N at i onal L aw y er s I ns ur ance R eci pr ocal ( A N L I R ) , w hi ch pr ovi ded l egal l i abi l i t yand mal pr act i ce i ns ur ance fo r c er t ai n at t or ney s i n t he St at e of M iss iss ip p i w a s n o t li c e n se d w ith th a t D e p a rtm e n t to d o b u sin e ss in th e S tate on oraboutFebruary11, 20 0 3
. I fur t hercert i fyt hat , acc or di ng t o t he M is s is s ip p i C o d e , A N L I R pol i cyh ol ders are not cover ed and/ or prot ect ed u n d e r th e M is s is s ip p i I n s u r a n c e G u a r a n ty A s s o c ia ti o n . (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶23. T he t r i al cour trul ed: O kay
. M ot i on t o St ayw i l l be deni ed. T he C our t i n T ennes s ee i s nota Feder al B an k rup tcyC o u rtw h ere p roc ee d ing s ar e aut om at i ca ll ystay ed
. It ’s a C h an ce ry C o u rto f T en n esse e, w h ere the re ce iversh ip – th e ins u ran ce co m p an yA -N -L -IR , i s notcover ed underSect i on § 83- 23- 135 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode and not par tof t hatas s oci at i on of i ns urer s . T he C our ti n T ennes s ee i s r eal l yof no c o n se q u e n c e in th e o u tco m e o f th is la w su it. T h e o n lyw a yth e yc o u ld b e is if t heypr ovi de a defe ns e. B ut i f t hey coul d pr ovi de a def ens e, t hey ’ ve gotfunds t o do t hat ; t heycoul d al s o r ei m bur s e the def endant s foranym oneyexpende d on count s w hi ch i s bas i cal l yt he s ame t hi ng. T heyj us tdon’ tgett o choos e w ho t heypayt he moneyt o. T he M ot i on t o St ayi s deni ed. ¶ 2 4
. W e f

in d th e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n b y d e n y in g th e m o tio n to s ta y . See Her r ington v. L eaf

R i verFor es t P ro d u cts, I nc. , 733 So. 2d 744, 776 ( M i s s 1999)
. T he l i abi l i t yi ns ur ance fi r m , A N L IR , i s notpr ot ect ed byM i s s i s s i ppi l aw . I n addi t i on, no
au tom ati c stayis pro v ided to an y p o li cy h o lders o f A N L IR
. A s su ch , w e f ind the tri al co u rt
c o r r e c t l y ru l e d t o d e n y t h e m o t i o n t o s t a y. III. M o ti o n to D isqu a li fy ¶25. I n Col

s on v. Johnson , 764 So. 2d 438, 439 ( M i s s . 2000) , t hi s C our t rul ed on a m ot i on t o di s qual i fyan att or neyand hel d:T he D efen dan t s als o cl ai m t hat A bd een m ay hav e personal know l edg e of the case 4 out s i de hi s s cope a s an at t or ney . H ow ever , the D efe ndant s offe rno pr oof of thi s as s er t i on, a n d , t h e r e f

o r e , t h i s Co u r th a s n o e v i d e n c e t o a d d r e s s t h i s c l a i m. 13 L i t t l e ca s e l aw exi s t s i n M i s s i s s i ppi w i t h r egar d t o t h e stan d ard of r evi ew of a t r i al cour t ' s deci s i on of a mot i on t o di s qual i fyan att or ney . I n Q ui ck Change O il & Lubr i c ati on Co. v. C ou n t y Line Plac e, I

nc . 571 So. 2d 968, 970 ( M i s s . 1990) , w e hel d t hat m ani fes t err or appl i es onl yt o r evi ew of fi ndi ngs of fac tand t hatt he courthas br oad di s cr et i on. ¶ 2 6
. T h e D e f

e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n to d isq u a lifyA b d e e n , the a tto rn e yo f re c o rd f o r B o w ie and B r ow n, i n the l egal m al pr act i ce c as e. T he bas i s of t he mot i on w as t hatA bdeen s t at ed i n an af fi davi tt hathe had pe r s onal know l edge of t he fa ct s in the ca se. Ther efor e, t he D efe ndant s ar gue t hatA bdeen maybe ca l l ed as a w i t nes s att r i al
. T he ac tual aff i davi ts t at es 4 in p a rt: 1. M yname i s E ddi e J
. A bdeen a nd I have pe r s onal know l edge of t he fa cts set fo rt h h ere in. I am o n e o f th e att o rne y s o f rec o rd in this m att er. 2. I her ebycert i fyt hatt he att ache d e- m ai l s ar e true and c or r ectcopi es of t he em ai l s [si c] r eferr ed to as com po si t e E xh i bit“ E ” in P l ai nti ffs’ M o tio n f o r P a rt ia l S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t in th e c a p tio n e d c a s e . T he D efe ndant s al s o ci t e t o t h e tr an scriptof t he hea r i ng conduct ed on J anuary4, 2005. Speci fi cal l y , t heyci t e t o t he di r ect and cr os s - exami nat i on of K ey s , an att or neyand empl oy ee att he Fi r m . T he e- m ai l s m ent i oned i n A bdeen’ s aff i davi tw er e betw een hi m and K ey s over a per i od of a f

ew w eeks
. D ur i ng t he hea r i ng, A bdeen que s t i oned K ey s aboutt he cont entand

c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h p ro m p te d th e s e n d in g o f th e e -m a ils
. ¶27. B ow i e cont ends t he aff i davi t m er el y s t at ed t hat A bdeen had per s onal know l edge of t h e f a c t s s e tf o r t h i n t h e a f

f i d a v i ta n d a u t h e n t i c a t e d t h e e - m a i l s b e t w e e n A b d e e n a n d K e y.14

B ow i e al s o ar gues t hatA bdeen ha d no know l edge of t he under l y i ng fac t s of t he ca s e i t s el f. T he tr i al cour tdeni ed the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s qual i fyA bdeen. ¶ 2 8
. We f

i n d t h e r e c o r d i s c l e a r t h a t Ab d e e n h a d n o k n o wl e d g e o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a s e . He

m er el y had an e

- m ai l excha nge w i t h an empl oy ee of t he Fi r m , K ey s , w hi ch occ ur r ed af t er G i bbs , B yr d, and the Fi r m w er e serv ed w it h pr oces s . A bdeen ha d no per s onal know l edge of t he under l y i ng B o w ie cas e w hi ch l ed t o t he fi l i ng of a l egal m al pr act i ce c as e aga i ns tt he D efen dan t s. A ccordi ng l y , w e fi nd t hat the tr i al cou rtdid not err byden y i ng t he D efen dan t s’

m ot i on t o di s qual i fyA bdeen. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 9
. For t he re a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r twas c o r r e c ti n i t s ru l i ngs and aff i r m t he t r i al cour ti n t ot o. ¶30. AFF I RM ED
. W AL LE R, P . J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RANDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. EAS LEY, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI T T E N OPI NI ON J OI NE D B Y G RA VE S , J . CO B B , P . J . , AN D D I AZ , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . EAS LEY, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND D I S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶31. I agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t y ’ s opi ni on t o aff i r m t he tr i al cour tfi ndi ngs t o denyt he m ot i on to sta ya n d th e m o tio n to d isq u a lify . H o w e v e r, I d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo r ity ’s d e c isio n to af firm the tri al co u rto n the issu e o f g ran ti n g p arti al s u m m a ry j u d g m en t i n B o w ie’s fa v o r. I bel i eve t her e i s a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac t conce r ni ng w hethert he def endant s r ece i ved15

B o w ie’s F ir st Se t of

R eq u ests fo r A d m issi o n s. I also stron g lyd isag ree w ith the tri al co u rt and thi s C our t ’ s fai l ur e t o cons i dert he s w or n aff i davi t s of t he def

endant s , G i bbs and B yr d, and thei rcouns el , M ar t i n. T he af fi davi t s s t at e thatnone of them re cei ved the r eques t s for adm issi o n s. I fi nd i tas t oni s hi ng and di s appoi nt i ng t hatt he tr i al cour t , and the maj or i t yof t his C o u rt byw ayof af fi r m ance , compl et el ydi s r egar ded the s w or n aff i davi t s of t he D efen dan t s and thei r counsel, al l off i cers of the cou rt
. T h e fai l ure t o co nsi der t hese aff i davi t s s ends a m essa g e t o al l l aw y er s t hatt hei rs w or n aff i davi t s ar e untrus t w or t hyand h a v e n o c re d ib ili tyin a c o u rt o f law
. F o r th e se re a so n s, I m u st c o n c u r in p a rt a n d d iss e n t in p a r tw i t h t h e m a

j o r i t y’ s o p i n i o n t o d a y. ¶32. H er e, the tr ial co u rt g rant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof B ow i e on the i s s ue of l i abi l i t y ; found t he D efe ndant s w er e s er ved the r e q ues tforadmi s s i ons ; and deni ed the mot i on t o s etas i de admi s s i ons . A tt he hea r i ng t he tr i al cour ts t at ed: [I ] tappears t o t he C our tt hatt heyw er e s er ved – B yr d – B yr d l aw fi r m and K atr i na G i bbs w er e s er ved. N o r es pons e w as fi l ed. I under s t and w haty ou s ay M r . M ar t i n [couns el for t he D efe ndant s ] , about w hy w oul d I fi l e an a ns w erand notfi l e a mot i ons r es pons es [s i c]
. I ’ ve s een i t happen a l otof t i m es . W i t h – M a yb e t h e y w e re o v e rl o o k e d , I d o n ’t k n o w . B u t it d o e s s h o w a p a tte rn , I t hi nk. T he pl ai nt i ff’ s M ot i on forPar t i al Sum m aryJ udgm entw i l l be gr ant ed a s to th e n e g lig e n c e is s u e b u t d e n ie d a s to th e m o n e ta ry v a lu e . . . . A . Se r vi c e of

R e que s t s f

or A dm i s s i ons ¶33
. T he m ai n is sue i s w hethert he D efen dan t s w ere ser ved w i t h process on t he R equ est f o r A d m is s io n s . O f

s i gni f i cance , G ibbs , B y rd, and P rec i ous M art i n ( M art i n) , counse l16

f or G i bbs , By r d, and t he Fi r m , al l ga ve af f i dav i t s s t at i ng t hat t he y nev e r r e c e i ve d any req u est s f

or a d m i ssi on s. ¶ 3 4
. T h e trial c o u rt p a p e rs c o n tain p re p rin ted su m m o n se s w h ich sta ted th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts h a d n o tice a n d se rv ice o f th e P lain tiff

s’ F irst R e q u e sts f

o r P ro d u c tio n o f

D o c u m e n ts Pr opounded t o D efe ndant
. G i bbs and B yr d al s o r ece i ved s um m ons es w i t h a h a n dwr i t t en
n o tat i on s t a t i n g “ Fi r s tSe to f I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s & Re q u e s t s f o rAdmi s s i o n s ” n e a rt h e n o t i ce par agr aph. H ow ever , the D efe ndant s ar gue thatt hey had no know l edge of t he r eques tfor

a d m iss io n s u n til B o w ie f iled th e m o tio n f

o r p a rtial s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. ¶35. D uri n g the h ea ri n g , W ind h am , the proc es s s er ver , s t at ed thathe s er ved G i bbs p e rso n a lly , an d se rv e d C h ristyH a ll, B yrd ’s se c re tar y . H e c o u ld n o t id e n tifyw h o h a n d w ro te t he w or ds “Fi r s t Set of Int err ogat or i es & R eques t s for A dm i s s i ons ” on t he s um m ons es . Of

s i g n i f i c a n c e , W i n d h a m d i d n o t k n o w i f t h o s e w o r d s w e r e o n t h e s u mmo n s e s a t t h e t i me he s erved th em . D es pi t e thi s t es t i m ony , W i ndham cl ai m ed thathe s er ved w hat everw as
w r i t t en on the r etur ns . W i ndham al s o s i gned pr epr i nt ed pro ofs of s er vi ce thati ndi cat ed

ser vice of t he sum m on ses, am end ed co m plai nt, i nterrogat ori es an d request s for adm i ssi on s. T hes e pr oofs of s er vi ce w er e compl et el yt yped, unl i ke the s um m o n ses, w hi ch had the han dw ri t t en n otat i on s conce rni ng t he requ est s for adm i ssi on s on the r eturns. ¶36. K ey s t es t i fi ed r egar di ng a num ber of e- m ai l s betw een A t t or neyA bdeen a nd her
. O ne of t he e- m ai l s , dat ed M ay13, 2004, fr om A bdeen cont ai ned at t achment s w hi ch i ncl uded the

re q u e s ts f

o r a d m is s io n s . K e y s s ta te d th a t s h e re c e iv e d th e M a y1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , e -m a il. H ow ever ,17

K ey s st ated tha t s h e d i d n ot op en an y att ach m en ts . A l s o, K ey s ’ s e- m ai l s t o A bdeen do

no trefer ence a nyadm i ssi on s. S he st at ed thatshe w as unf am i l i ar w i t h the case. K ey s al so sta ted that G i bb s sol el y request ed that she s eek an ext ensi on from A bd een t o fil e th e ir

ans w er . K ey s s t at ed t hat s he m er el yat t empt ed t o getan ext ens i on forfi l i ng an ans w eri n t he

c a se . K e y s tes tifie d th a t sh e w a s n o t th e re g iste re d a g e n t f o r th e F irm a n d n o t au th o riz e d to
s p e a k o n b e h a l f

o f t h e F i r m. ¶37. B ow i e ar gues t hat t he D efe ndant s w er e not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef pur s uant t o M
. R
. C
. P. 36 beca us e theyneverpr es ent ed a j us t i fi abl e exc us e forfai l i ng to resp ond t o t he r eques t s for admi s s i ons . B ow i e r el i ed on Ear woo d v . R eev es , 7 9 8 So. 2d 508, 517 ( M i s s . 2001) , for author i t y . T he D efe ndant s ar gue t hat t hey had no know l edge of t he re ques t s foradmi s s i ons unt i l t he motion forpar t i al s um m aryj udgm entw as fi l ed byB ow i e. T her eaf t er , t he De f e n d a n t s i mm e d i a t e l y f i l e d a mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w t h e r e q u e s t s f o ra d mi s s i o n s . As pr evi ous l ym ent i oned, G i bbs , B yr d, and M ar t i n al l gave affi davi t s s t at i ng t hatnone of them

w ere s erved w i t h an ydis cov eryi ncludi ng anyrequest s for adm i ssi on s. ¶38. I n E ar w ood , R e e v e s f ile d a c o m p la in t ag a in s t E a rw o o d a n d h is la w f ir m . Id
. at514. I ns t ead of

fi l i ng an ans w erand r es pondi ng t o r eques t s t o di s covery , E arw ood fi l ed a mot i on to tr a n s f e r f o r c h a n g e o f

v e n u e to a n o th e r c o u n ty. Id
. E arw ood and the fi r m ar gued thatt hey bel i eved i n good fai t h t hatt he fi l i ng of t he mot i on t o t r ans fert ol l ed the t i m e li m itfor

re s p o n d in g . Id
. at 5 1 5
. T hi s C our tfound no abus e of di s cr et i on byt he tr i al cour tand

a f f ir m e d th e g ra n t o f

p a rt ia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Id
. at516.18

¶ 3 9
. He r e , t he fa c t s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m E ar w ood
. T he D efe ndant s cl ai m t hatt hey

neverr ece i ved t he r eques tforadmi s s i ons and si g n ed affi davi t s t o t hateff ect
. T he D ef en d an ts an d their co u n sel are a ll o ff icers o f th e c o u rtan d h av e a n o b li g ati o n to the co u rt to b e tru th f

u l. O n c e B o w ie f

iled th e m o tio n f

o r p a rtial su m m a ry , th e D e f e n d a n ts im m e d iate ly f ile d a m o tio n to w ith d ra w d e f a u lt r e s p o n s e s . E ar w ood c ite s tw o o t h e r c a s e s , Mar tin v. Sim m ons , 571 So. 2d 254 ( M i s s . 1990) and Sun bel t R oyal t y, I nc. v. B i g- G D r il ling C o. , 592 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ), f o r e x a m p les o f c ase s in w h ich th is C o u rtu p h eld a tr ial co u rt d e c is io n w h ic h d e e m e d u n a n s w e re d re q u e s ts f o r a d m is s io n to b e a d m itte d
. E ar w ood , 798 at517. H ow ever , t hes e cas es ar e al s o di s t i ngui s habl e beca us e t he defe ndant s t hes e tw o cas es had no couns el , and t he D efe ndant s her e gave s i gned aff i davi t s t hat t heyneverr ece i ved t he request s for adm i ssi on s. ¶ 4 0
. T h e trial c o u rt ru lin g c lea rlyre f e re n c e d a n d re lied o n th e D e f e n d a n ts’s f

a ilu re to
ans w ert he r eques tforadmi s s i ons t o gr antpar t i al s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of B ow i e. H o w ev er, th ere is a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fa ct, that b eing , w h ethe r G ibb s an d B yrd w ere actual l ys er ved w i t h t he r eques t s foradmi s s i ons . T he t es t i m onyfr om W i ndham i ndi cat es t hat he do es not kno w w hat he ser ved on G i bb s and B yrd’ s secr et ary , H al l
. W i nd ham al so do es not kno w w hether t he w ords “Fir stS etof Int err og at ori es & R equ est s for A dm i ssi on s”

w er e w r i t t en on the s um m ons es att he t i m e he s er ved t hem on t he D efe ndant s . K ey s s t at ed that sh e k n ew n o thing ab o u t th e c ase an d n ev er o p en ed an yatt ac h m e n ts f ro m A b d ee n . In19

ad d it ion , G ibb s, B yrd, an d their co u n sel, M a rt in, as o ff icers o f th e c o u rt , all g av e sw o rn affidavi t s that theynev er r ecei ved anyrequest s for adm i ssi on s. ¶41. T he maj or i t ys t at es t hatt he tr i al cour ts oundl yr ej ect ed the D efe ndant s “me a g e r pr oof”

a n d re a so n s f

o r th e th e ir f

a ilu re to re sp o n d to th e re q u e st f o r a d m iss io n s. H o w e v e r, I f in d it

w or r i s om e thatby aff

i r m i ng t he t r i al cour t rul i ng, t hi s C our t i s endor s i ng t he compl et e r efus al

o f th e tri al co u rtto co n side r t h e su b m issi o n o f sw o rn a ff id av it s fro m law y ers, w h o are
o f f ice rs o f th e c o u rt. ¶42. A ccor di ngl y , I bel i eve t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed bygr ant i ng B ow i e’ s m ot i on for par t i al

s um m aryj udgm ent
. T her e exi s t s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , t hatbei ng, w hetherG i bbs and Byr d e v e rr e c e i v e d t h e r e q u e s tf o ra d mi s s i o n s . Ba s e d u p o n t h e c l o u d s u r r o undi ng
s er vi ce of pr oces s of t he r eques t s for admi s s i ons , t he gr ant of par t i al s um m ary j udgm ent sh o u ld b e re v e rse d , an d th e c a se sh o u ld b e re m a n d e d to th e trial c o u rt. B. N e g lig e n c e - B o w ie ¶43. B ow i e as serts a co ll ater al es t oppel ar gum ent on t he i s s ue of l i abi l i t y cl ai m i ng t hat B o w ie e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e De f e n d a n t s b r e a c h e d t h e i r l e g a l d u t y o f c a r e a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w. B ow i e cl ai m s t hati f t he D efe ndant s ar e al l ow ed t o w i t hdr aw t he admi s s i ons he w oul d s uffe r
a d d iti o n a l d e lay, e x p e n se s, a n d e f f o rt. ¶44. T hi s C our ti n B o w ie affirm ed a t ri al cou rt rul i ng t o grant sum m ary j ud gm ent because th e p la in tif

f s f a ile d to tim e ly d e s ig n a te a n e x p e rt in a m e d ic a l m a lp ra c tic e c a s e . B o w ie , 861 So. 2d at1043. “The t r i al j udge made a s peci fi c fi ndi ng t hat the pl ai nt i ffs had fai l ed t o s how20

any e x c u s a b le n e g le c t a s to w h yth e d e s ig n a tio n o f th e e x p e rt w a s n o t tim e ly f ile d .” Id
. at 1042. C ont r ar yt o B ow i e’ s as s er t i ons , t hi s C our t m ade no actual fi ndi ng of l egal m al pr act i ce i n B o w ie . T h e re f

o re , I b e liev e th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶45. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , I r esp ec tful l y concur i n par t and di s s ent i n par t w i t h t he

m aj or i t yopi ni on. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.