11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 447a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Motion to dismiss for failure to comply with discovery order is granted where medical provider who failed to provide requested better answers to interrogatories agreed to entry of order requiring service of better answers, provider failed to serve amended answers by date set in order and two months later served unverified answers virtually identical to prior answers, and provider served answers that were verified but substantially same as prior answers on day before hearing on motion to dismiss
NEUROSCIENCE DX, INC., on behalf of Nino Despota, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 02-5751-SC-NPC. February 19, 2004. William B. Blackwood, Judge. Counsel: Gale L. Young, Gale L. Young, P.A., Tampa. R. Stanley Gipe.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER
THIS CAUSE, having come on before this Court on February 3, 2004, upon the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the Court’s Discovery Order, and, the Court having heard argument of counsel for the respective parties, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the court makes the following findings of fact:
1. On September 12, 2002 counsel for Defendant served upon Plaintiff by mail, Defendant’s Interrogatories relating to the above captioned case.
2. Plaintiff served its answers to those Interrogatories on October 30, 2002, however, Defendant asserted that certain answers were incomplete or insufficient.
3. On November 11, 2002, counsel for Defendant forwarded a letter to counsel for Plaintiff specifically identifying the insufficiencies in Plaintiff’s answers and requested that Plaintiff serve amended answers to the Interrogatories.
4. Plaintiff failed to provide the requested, amended, discovery responses, and Defendant served a Motion to Compel on Plaintiff on November 26, 2002, seeking better answers to the previously served Interrogatories.
5. When Plaintiff failed to further respond to Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Defendant scheduled a hearing for May 13, 2003. On May 13, 2003, Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant consented to the entry of an Agreed Order providing that Plaintiff would serve better answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories by May 13, 2003.
6. Plaintiff violated the court’s order in failing to respond by May 13, 2003. Almost, two months later, on July 10, 2003, Plaintiff served its “better,” yet still unverified, answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories, which were virtually identical to those previously served prior to the Agreed Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Answers.
7. On November 25, 2003, Defendant served Plaintiff with a notice of hearing, scheduling its Motion to Dismiss for failing to comply with the court’s discovery order, scheduling its hearing for December 2, 2003.1 It was not until December 1, 2003, more than one year after the original answers were due, and the day before the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, that Plaintiff served its verified answers, with the answers being substantially the same as those previously served.
8. Plaintiff’s refusal to provide verified and complete answers to Defendant’s interrogatories in compliance with the court’s order constitutes a willful disregard of the court’s order, and has prejudiced Defendant’s ability to prepare a defense in this case.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with the Court’s Discovery Order is GRANTED. This case is dismissed and Defendant shall go hence without day. The court reserves jurisdiction to determine Defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, and the amount, if any, to be awarded in the defense of this cause.
__________________
1On December 2, 2003, the court was unable to hear the motion and requested the hearing be rescheduled.
* * *
