Bindel v. Larrington

543 N.W.2d 912, 1995 Iowa App. LEXIS 157, 1995 WL 807500

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 22, 1995
• Docket: 94-1483
• Status: Published

Opinions

HUITINK, Judge.

Trevor Bindel appeals a district court judgment dismissing his claim against Wendell and Lorraine Larrington. We affirm.

On October 8, 1993, Trevor Bindel filed a petition at law seeking damages from Wendell and Lorraine Larrington as a result of injuries suffered when the motorcycle he was driving collided with Larringtons’ car. The accident happened on October 12,1991, when the parties were attending the Covered Bridge Festival in Winterset.

On November 19, 1993, the Larringtons served Bindel with twenty-two interrogatories and ten requests for production of documents. Bindel did not respond to the requests, and on March 22, 1994, the Lar-ringtons filed a motion to compel. Bindel did not respond to the motion or to the discovery requests. The district court subsequently ordered Bindel to serve discovery responses by May 16, 1994. On May 16 Bindel’s attorney contacted the Larring-tons’ attorney and requested an extra week to provide responses. When Bindel had not responded by June 20, 1994, the Lar-ringtons filed a motion for sanctions, and a hearing followed. Prior to the hearing, Bindel’s attorney provided Larringtons’ attorney with incomplete discovery responses. Fifteen days later the district court entered its ruling dismissing Bindel’s claim for failure to respond to discovery. The district court stated Bindel’s attorney had not shown any extenuating circumstances to explain or justify his inaction and concluded counsel’s failure to respond to discovery was willful and inexcusable. Bindel then made a motion to enlarge, amend, and substitute its ruling pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 179(b). The district court denied the motion. Bindel appeals.

Our review is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 4. The imposition of discovery sanctions by a trial court is discretionary and will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Sullivan v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 326 N.W.2d 320, 324 (Iowa 1982). In order to show an abuse of discretion, one generally must show the court exercised its discretion “ ‘on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.’” State v. Blackwell, 238 N.W.2d 131, 138 (Iowa 1976) (quoting Weeks v. Burnor, 326 A.2d 138, 140 (Vt.1974)).

Bindel contends the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his claim. He asserts dismissal was improper because his failure to comply with the court’s orders resulted from his attorney’s neglect. He also challenges the district court’s determination his failure to comply with discovery was willful.

We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bindel’s claim. Dismissal is a discovery sanction generally used when a party has violated a trial court’s order. Suckow v. Boone State Bank & Trust Co., 314 N.W.2d 421, 426 (Iowa 1982). We note that the trial court’s discretion narrows when the drastic sanction of dismissal is imposed. Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. v. Rowe, 424 N.W.2d 235, 240 (Iowa 1988). The fact that less drastic sanctions are available to the trial court, however, does not require a finding the trial court abused its discretion. McQuillen v. City of Sioux City, 306 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1981). To justify dismissal of a claim, the party’s noncompliance must be due to willfulness, fault, or bad faith. Postma v. Sioux Center News, 393 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Iowa 1986).

The record shows the district court by calendar entry dated May 2, 1994, required Bindel to respond to defendants’ discovery requests by May 16. Although Bindel made some effort to comply with this order, he did not serve formal answers to defendants’ interrogatories until August 18, 1994, ten days after the trial court issued its order dismissing plaintiffs claim. Bindel did not inform the court of any extenuating circumstances explaining his failure to comply, nor did he respond to the Larringtons’ motion to compel or motion for sanctions. Bindel’s inaction was a clear violation of the trial court’s order compelling discovery. While dismissal may have been a drastic measure, it was not disproportionate in view of the nature of counsel’s violation.

We further find substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination Bindel’s failure to comply was willful. There is nothing in the record indicating Bindel or his attorney were unaware of the discovery deadlines imposed by the court’s order, nor has Bindel’s attorney provided any explanation for his failure to comply other than his own neglect. A finding of willfulness by the client is not a prerequisite to dismissal. See Kendall/Hunt, 424 N.W.2d at 241. The severity of the sanction imposed in this case was justified by counsel’s willful failure to comply with the district court’s discovery order. It is well settled that clients are responsible for their lawyer’s willful failure to comply with discovery orders. Kendall/Hunt, 424 N.W.2d at 235. This responsibility includes the consequences of dismissal or default. Id. Accordingly, it was not improper for the district court to dismiss Bindel’s claim because of his lawyer’s neglect. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing Bindel’s claim.

AFFIRMED.

SCHLEGEL, Senior Judge, concurs.

SACKETT, P.J., dissents.