Court Opinion

ID: 9644473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:57:06.585131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:13.934769
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. This decision is wrong for two reasons. First, it denies the appellant without money the right to have her claim adjudicated in the courts. Second, the sanctions imposed were too harsh and beyond those authorized by Rule 37(d). The appellant notified her attorney prior to the first scheduled deposition that she would be unable to attend. I think she was justified in believing her attorney would either have the deposition rescheduled or contact her and tell her she must attend. The second time the deposition was set the appellant simply forgot about it. Again, it was the responsibility of her attorney to remind her and see that she was present or had a valid reason for failing to be present. Additionally, I do not believe that it cost the appellee $500 to not take the first deposition. Obviously it took only a few minutes to determine that she was not going to be there. It certainly has not been shown that the appellant’s failure to attend the deposition was willful, deliberate, or characterized by a conscious disregard of her discovery obligations. In fact there had been no order issued in the case, and, so far as the record shows, she had not been informed of the severity of failure to attend. Perhaps she would not have forgotten had she been properly warned.