Court Opinion

ID: 9590471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:55:11.187633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:10.550475
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Division 1, but with respect to Division 2 concerning the hospital, the trial court should also take into account, on remand, that the hospital did not notice plaintiffs for deposition and that the notice served by the doctor’s attorney does not indicate the deposition is requested by both defendants. Nor did the doctor’s attorney purport to act for the other defendant in noticing the depositions. A prospective deponent is entitled to know who requests his testimony, that is, which party or parties will be the interrogator, so the deponent can adequately prepare. It is a simple thing to give notice.
The hospital cannot obtain sanctions for the plaintiffs’ failure to attend depositions it did not ask for. As stated and applied in Johnson v. Martin, 137 Ga. App. 312, 314 (223 SE2d 465) (1976), “there is no authority for a co-defendant to become the beneficiary of a dismissal under CPA § 37 (d) merely because of a failure of the plaintiff to comply with the other co-defendant’s discovery actions.” Although that case involved plaintiff’s failure to serve answers or objections to interrogatories and a response to a request for inspection of documents, rather than failure to attend a deposition, the rule applies equally because OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) covers “Failure of party to attend at own deposition or serve answers to interrogatories or respond to request for inspection.” The rule was again applied in Singleton v. Eastern Carriers, 192 Ga. App. 227, 228 (2) (384 SE2d 202) (1989), where the requested discovery was comprised of interrogatories and the production of documents. The remedy is provided for the party who has been wronged.
On remand, resolution of the issue should be guided by the Supreme Court’s statement in Shrembs v. Atlanta Classic Cars, 261 Ga. 182 (402 SE2d 723) (1991): “We have cautioned against the use of these harsher sanctions [dismissal and default] except in extreme cases, [cit.], and have held that the trial court must find wilfulness as a predicate to imposing the sanctions.” See also Bells Ferry Landing, Ltd. v. Wirtz, 188 Ga. App. 344, 345 (373 SE2d 50) (1988).