Opinion ID: 852618
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Omission in Initial Response to Interrogatories

Text: Indiana Trial Rule 26 provides that parties may obtain discovery by means of written interrogatory regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject-matter involved in the pending action including the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. T.R. 26(B)(1). Information that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence may be sought if the information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The names and addresses of potential witnesses and persons with knowledge of material facts are squarely within the range of proper discovery. Trial Rule 33(B) provides that each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to. Rule 33(C) further provides that the failure to make a timely response to interrogatories is grounds for sanction under Rule 37. The Dram Shop Act, Indiana Code section 7.X-X-XX-XX.5, imposes civil liability for knowingly furnishing alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person whose intoxication causes injury to persons or property. Under Trial Rule 26(B)(1), information is discoverable if it is relevant and not privileged. If the Markleys expected to call Roysdon as a witness, both Roysdon's identity and the substance of her 1997 statement were called for by Interrogatory 12. Her account of Whitaker's state of intoxication was obviously relevant to the Markleys' Dram Shop Act claim and is not protected from disclosure by any privilege. Indiana's Trial Rules, like earlier versions of the federal rules, do not require automatic disclosure of discoverable information. The Markleys argue that they were not required to disclose Roysdon's name and her 1997 statement because they did not intend to rely on Roysdon's testimony to support their Dram Shop claim but chose instead to rely on indirect and circumstantial evidence to prove Outback's actual knowledge of visible intoxication. The trial court agreed that the Markleys did not intend to rely on Roysdon because (1) the Markleys did not include Roysdon on their pre-trial witness list and first decided to call her mid-trial and (2) the Markleys did not rely on Roysdon's 1997 statement to oppose Outback's pre-trial motion for summary judgment on the Dram Shop Act claim. The Markleys also argue that they did not disclose Roysdon's identity because she failed to respond to attempts to contact her in the two years following her 1997 statement and therefore they did not plan to call her as a witness at trial. [6] If, as the Markleys claim, they did not expect to present direct evidence of Whitaker's intoxication through Roysdon and had no other direct evidence of Whitaker's intoxication, they would be correct that the substance of her account of Whitaker's condition at the grand opening was not required to be set forth in response to Interrogatory 12. [7] But even if we accept the claim that the plaintiffs intended to offer no direct evidence of Whitaker's conduct or condition, we think it is clear that Roysdon's identity was called for by Interrogatory 12. The Markleys' claim that they did not intend to call Roysdon is beside the point. The interrogatory called for persons with knowledge of the facts on which the Markleys relied, not for persons on whose testimony they intended to rely. It is true, of course, that the Markleys' answer to Interrogatory 12 did not cite discrete facts such as whether Whitaker was staggering, smelled of alcohol, slurred his speech, or danced on the table. It is peculiar, to say the least, that plaintiffs' 1999 interrogatory answers made no such allegations, given Roysdon's 1997 statement to Alexander. It is also notable that plaintiffs made no effort in Roysdon's 2001 deposition to shake her testimony that Whitaker was fine. At oral argument the Markleys' appellate counsel suggested, based on facts not of record, that difficulties in communication between Alexander and McClellan, who handled Roysdon's deposition, may have been a factor. That may be true. And the Markleys may have discredited Roysdon's 1997 account and therefore intended not to call her because they believed she was unreliable. Nevertheless, Roysdon was obviously present at the grand opening and was a person with knowledge of the facts the Markleys' response asserted. As a result of her 1997 visit, Markleys' counsel knew this. So in that respect the 1999 interrogatory answer was patently deficient under any supposition as to the underlying reasons for that deficiency. If the Markleys' attorneys had any doubt about this, it is resolved by the obligation to construe an interrogatory fairly. Interrogatories should not be interpreted with excessive rigidity or technicality, but a rule of reason should be applied. Pilling v. Gen. Motors Inc., 45 F.R.D. 366, 369 (D.Utah 1968); see also Dotson v. Bravo, 321 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir.2003) (incomplete or evasive responses to interrogatories support dismissal of an action); 7 Moore, supra, at § 33.101. Additionally, answers to interrogatories must be responsive, full, complete and unevasive. Pilling, 45 F.R.D. at 369. This commonsense approach to the interpretation of interrogatory requests furthers the purposes of discovery, namely, to allow parties to obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, to promote settlement, to remove surprise from trial preparation, and to narrow the disputed issues and facts requiring trial. 6 Moore, supra, at § 26.02; Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526, 528 (Ind.1990); Pierce v. Pierce, 702 N.E.2d 765, 767 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied; Hatfield, 676 N.E.2d at 399. The Markleys point out that even if they did not disclose Roysdon's identity or her 1997 statement in response to Interrogatory 12, they disclosed Roysdon's name in response to a different interrogatory asking for facts supporting their habitual drunkard claim. This is not an answer. Whitaker and Roysdon had worked together at another restaurant before the grand opening, and Roysdon may well have had information about Whitaker's past but known nothing of his condition at the grand opening. In short, the facts related to Whitaker's being a habitual drunkard are obviously different from those bearing on his state of intoxication at the Outback grand opening. The immediate effect of omission of Roysdon as a person with knowledge of the facts supporting the claim of visible intoxication is speculative. If Roysdon had been identified by the plaintiffs in response to Interrogatory 12, a number of scenarios might have evolved. Outback might have deposed her earlier than it did, and her testimony might have adhered to the version she gave Alexander in 1997. Whether or not this is the case, if the plaintiffs had identified her as a person with knowledge bearing on Whitaker's state of visible intoxication, Outback might well have asked Roysdon about any conversations she had with plaintiffs' attorneys. All of this is conjecture on our part. The significant point is that, as subsequent events developed, Outback makes a persuasive claim that the trial would have unfolded differently if the Markleys' attorneys had discharged their initial discovery obligations. The parties dispute, and the record does not resolve, whether the failure to disclose Roysdon's identity and 1997 statement in response to Interrogatory 12 was an act of carelessness, failure of communication between plaintiffs' attorneys, or part of an intentional scheme to defraud Outback and deceive the court and jury. Outback contends that the plaintiffs' attorneys intentionally suckered it into positioning itself as disingenuous before the jury by a purposeful concealing of Roysdon's testimony. If so, and if the Markleys intended from the outset to present Roysdon as a witness for the plaintiffs, they were required to disclose both Roysdon's identity and the substance of her 1997 statement. Indiana discovery rules are specifically designed to avoid surprise and the trial by ambush that Outback charges was designed by the plaintiffs. See Canfield, 563 N.E.2d at 528. We have consistently rejected a gaming view of the litigation process. In Johnston we held that a default judgment must be set aside under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) for misconduct where the plaintiff's attorney filed suit and pursued a default judgment without notifying the attorneys whom she had been advised in writing were representing the defendant in the matter. 711 N.E.2d at 1260-61. In response to the plaintiff's argument that provision of notice would make it nearly impossible to obtain a default judgment against health care providers, we stated that default judgments are not traps to be set for unsuspecting litigants and rejected the gaming view of the legal system presented by the plaintiff's argument. Id. at 1264; see also McCullough v. Archbold, 605 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind.1993) (citing Mauricio v. State, 476 N.E.2d 88, 95 (Ind.1985) (De Bruler, J., dissenting) (The State may not insist that trials be run as a `search for truth' so far as defense witnesses are concerned while maintaining 'poker game' secrecy for its own witnesses.)); Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 419, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (Brennan, J., dissenting) ([D]iscovery is not a game.); United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958) (the purpose of pretrial discovery is to make a trial less a game of blindman's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent); Harvey v. Horan, 285 F.3d 298, 317-18 (4th Cir.2002) (There was a time when concealment and gamesmanship were accepted as part and parcel of the adversarial process of the criminal justice system. . . . [W]e decidedly rejected this system long ago. . . .). However, whether the omission was intentional or negligent, and even if, as appears here, only the attorneys and not the Markleys are responsible for the nondisclosure, we readily conclude that the initial omission was a violation of Indiana Trial Rules 26 and 33 and therefore misconduct within the meaning of Rule 60(B)(3). Whether it was prejudicial remains to be explained.