Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero
15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 595, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 1615, 569 So. 2d 1271 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's order dismissing a case or entering default as a severe sanction for failure to comply with discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 must include an express written finding that the non-compliant party's conduct was willful or constituted a deliberate disregard of the court's discovery orders.
Facts:
- On November 16, 1987, Moshe Tubero filed suit against Commonwealth Savings and Loan Association and other parties.
- On January 21, 1988, Commonwealth filed a request for production of documents and interrogatories, which were due to be answered by February 20, 1988.
- On February 17, 1988, Tubero's lawyer filed a motion to withdraw, citing lack of cooperation and irreconcilable differences with his client.
- Tubero did not respond to Commonwealth's requested discovery, nor did he object to the discovery requests or seek an extension of time.
- Commonwealth filed a motion to compel discovery because Tubero had not provided the requested information.
- The court entered an order requiring Tubero to comply with the discovery requests within ten days.
- Tubero did not provide the discovery as required by the court's order.
Procedural Posture:
- Moshe Tubero (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Commonwealth Federal Savings and Loan Association (defendant) in a trial court.
- The trial court granted Commonwealth's motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, dismissing Tubero's complaint for failure to comply with a prior discovery order.
- Tubero appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal order, holding that an order imposing dismissal or default under Rule 1.380 must include an express written finding that the appellant's conduct was a willful or deliberate violation of the discovery orders, and remanded the case for reconsideration of sanctions.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public interest to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the necessity of such an express written finding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an express written finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order to comply with discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 necessary to sustain the severe sanctions of dismissal or default against a noncomplying plaintiff or defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Grimes, Justice
Yes, an express written finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order to comply with discovery is necessary to sustain the severe sanctions of dismissal or default. The Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed that the trial judge's discretion to order dismissal or default for failure to comply with discovery is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, noting that such severe sanctions should only be employed in extreme circumstances involving deliberate and contumacious disregard, bad faith, willful disregard, gross indifference, or deliberate callousness. However, because trial judges are granted substantial discretion to impose these severe sanctions, the Court concluded that the order imposing them must contain an explicit finding of willful noncompliance. This requirement provides added assurance that the trial judge has made a conscious determination that the noncompliance was more than mere neglect or inadvertence. Furthermore, it assists appellate courts in cases where the record alone might be open to multiple interpretations. The Court clarified that no 'magic words' are required, only a finding that the conduct was 'equivalent to willfulness or deliberate disregard.' The Court distinguished its prior ruling in Mercer v. Raine by noting that while Mercer affirmed a striking order where the trial court had found willful disregard, it also implicitly disapproved of Santuoso v. McGrath & Associates because the default order in that case did not recite a willful failure to submit to discovery.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial procedural safeguard against the arbitrary imposition of severe discovery sanctions, such as dismissal or default, in Florida courts. By mandating an explicit finding of willfulness, the ruling ensures that trial judges critically evaluate the intent behind a party's non-compliance, thereby reserving the most punitive measures for truly egregious conduct rather than mere negligence. This requirement also brings greater clarity and consistency to appellate review, as it provides a clear basis for assessing whether a trial court abused its discretion. For litigants, it means that the severe consequences of dismissal or default are less likely to be imposed without a clear judicial determination of deliberate misconduct, promoting a more equitable application of discovery rules.
