Opinion ID: 1707689
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: basis for the decision to dismiss

Text: As noted in Section II(C)(2) of this opinion, BRMC propounded interrogatories to Palmer on May 12, 1983. On September 19, 1983  over four months after BRMC filed the interrogatories and nearly two months after BRMC filed a motion to compel a response  Palmer answered the interrogatories including No. 3 regarding expert witnesses, their opinions, and bases for their opinions. Palmer's answer to No. 3 revealed: My attorneys have not decided which expert they will call. Palmer did not provide a supplemental answer to No. 3 until July 3, 1986, and August 22, 1986  over three years after BRMC filed the interrogatories and approximately four months after Palmer employed the experts. In fact, the answers were not supplemented until after: (1) BRMC filed its motion to dismiss, and (2) Lamphier was deposed by Wooten. [27] Additional time to respond to BRMC's interrogatories was never requested. During the hearing on the motion. Palmer attempted to explain her failure to timely prosecute the case: Trial Judge: My question is this: How come so long? [That is, why did it take you so long to supplement the defendant's expert interrogatories?] Palmer: Your Honor, October of '83 Hall v. Hilbun was not decided and prior to [...] Trial Judge: Tough. Palmer: Yes sir, and we could not get an expert in Mississippi and its just that simple. There was no expert obtained until 1986. [28] Trial Judge: You couldn't get an expert in Mississippi  The trial judge was still perplexed by Palmer's inaction, so he later repeated his question and received a different answer: Trial Judge: What took this so long? Palmer: Your Honor, do you want me to answer some of that. I know that initially ... Trial Judge: Nothing was done since October 26th of 1983. Palmer: Let me say initially, this is when you have too many lawyers involved in too many things with too many active people, and I know initially I think David and I started out trying to set things and then he said, well I'm going to have to clear up certain things over here with Chuck. And then I think we had some minor problems with the hospital on they had changed or redesigned all of their, I believe, intensive care rooms... . There is a pile of things that went on and on and it's just to me it's basically a lack of ever being able to sit down and say this is how we're going to do it. We had too  clearly, too many chiefs and we didn't have any Indians in this case, is the way I look at what happened. Trial Judge: I don't like it... . Let's get the show on the road. Let's either find out if there's something here or there ain't. If there ain't, let me dump it all and get rid of it. If there is, let's set it down for trial about a week or two after the [hearing is concluded]. At a later point, Palmer provided yet another reason for her procrastination: [The case sub judice simply] got [put] on a back burner because of the Federal super docket that came in for one thing [a]nd some other state court cases. Clearly, good faith on Palmer's part for her failure to prosecute the case is absent. An understandably-annoyed judge, upon concluding the hearing on BRMC's motion, dismissed the suit pursuant to the dictates of Rule 37 for violation of Rule 26(f)(1).