Court Opinion

ID: 9675196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:44:31.369252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:32.266655
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. I would reverse the dismissal and remand to the trial court to impose sanctions against plaintiff’s attorney.
In Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. v. Rowe, 424 N.W.2d 235, 240-41 (Iowa 1988), the court said:
When faced with a violation of its discovery order, the district court’s duty is clear. Prior to dismissal or entering a default judgment, fundamental fairness should re*915quire a district court to enter an order to show cause and hold a hearing, if deemed necessary, to determine whether assessment of costs and attorney fees or even an attorney’s citation for contempt would be a more just and effective sanction. Dismissal and entry of a default judgment should be the rare judicial act. When noncompliance is the result of dilatory conduct by counsel, the courts should investigate the attorney’s responsibility as an officer of the court and, if appropriate, impose on the client sanctions less extreme than dismissal or default, unless it is shown that the client is deliberately or in bad faith fading to comply with the court’s order. (Citations omitted). This is not to say, however, that the district court may never impose sanctions of dismissal or default on a client unless the client has willfully or in bad faith failed to comply with discovery orders of the court. Such an absolute rule would conflict with the well-established rule that clients are responsible for the actions of their lawyers and in appropriate circumstances dismissal or default may be visited upon them because of the actions of their lawyers. (Citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).
The interrogatories were not answered because of dilatory actions of plaintiffs counsel. The question is whether this case calls for the rare judicial act of dismissal. I am of the opinion it does not. This was a two-vehicle accident case. Defendant’s agent had investigated the accident. Defendant’s agent received medical information from plaintiff.
At oral argument, defendant’s attorney told us the importance of receiving the answers to the interrogatories was so they could learn if plaintiff knew the address of a witness to the accident.
The discovery rules are for the purpose of providing information the other party does not have to allow him or her to prepare for trial. There were no great mysteries in this case and no real evidence defendant suffered prejudice because of plaintiffs failure to answer. This case does not call for the sanction of dismissal.
I would remand to the trial court to sanction plaintiffs attorney. Justice is best served by the ease being tried on its merits.