Case Name: Robert L. STEELE, Appellant, v. Barry CHAPNICK, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-08-16
Citations: 552 So. 2d 209
Docket Number: No. 88-0484
Parties: Robert L. STEELE, Appellant, v. Barry CHAPNICK, et al., Appellees.
Judges: ESQUIROZ, MARGARITA, Associate Judge, concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 552
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Robert L. STEELE, Appellant, v. Barry CHAPNICK, et al., Appellees.
No. 88-0484.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug. 16, 1989.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 13, 1989.
Jay A. Schwartz of Pershes & Schwartz, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.
Robert S. Hackleman of MeCune, Hiaa-sen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Opinion:
POLEN, Judge.
This is a timely appeal from an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice as a sanction for noncompliance with prior discovery orders. Because we find the sanction imposed too harsh in light of the record in this case, we reverse.
Appellant's responses to requests for production of documents, interrogatories, as well as his answers on deposition, were certainly less than complete. However, in reviewing the complained-of discovery and depositions, it appears that appellant substantially complied with appellees' requested discovery, such that we do not find the type of willful, contumacious disregard of the court's order that would warrant dismissal with prejudice. Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983). To be sure, a key piece of evidence, the allegedly missing $54,000 check, has never been produced by appellant. This may make appellant's burden much more difficult should the cause proceed to trial. However, this also suggests alternative sanctions the trial court may consider: precluding appellant from presenting evidence on those issues where appellant has failed to respond to discovery demands; entering findings of fact adverse to appellant on such issues; imposition of fines and/or attorney's fees. No doubt other sanctions, short of the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice, can be devised.
Having determined that the trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for dismissal with "prejudice, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ESQUIROZ, MARGARITA, Associate Judge, concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.