Court Opinion

ID: 9575929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:18:41.599438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:43.892727
License: Public Domain

Carley, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the ultimate sanction of dismissal in this case. However, because there was never an order entered by the trial court compelling discovery, dismissal was authorized only because there was a total failure of the appellant to comply with discovery procedures. Compare Thornton v. Burson, 151 Ga. App. 456 (260 SE2d 388) (1979).
However, I cannot concur in the majority’s imposition of the maximum penalty of $500 against this appellant pursuant to Rule 26 (b). After reviewing the entire record, I do not believe that the appeal in this instance was frivolous as contemplated by said rule. Appellant argues on appeal that appellant’s failure to comply with discovery was as a result of misunderstanding and lack of cooperation between counsel and the appellant. Although the trial court and this court have held such circumstances not to be reasonable grounds for noncompliance with discovery procedures, it should not follow that the appeal is automatically frivolous. Were this the rule, we would award frivolous appeal damages on every occasion wherein we affirm the trial court’s exercise of discretion in dismissing a complaint based upon the failure of a party to comply with discovery procedures. *238Sanctions under our rules should be prudently and cautiously imposed.
Decided October 26, 1992 —
Reconsideration denied November 10, 1992.
Didio & Broome, Stefano A. Didio, for appellant.
Harper, Waldon & Craig, Thomas D. Harper, for appellee.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Cooper join in this dissent.