22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 469b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2204CHAPInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Failure to comply — Sanctions — Medical provider that failed to provide better discovery responses ordered by court is found to be in contempt
RIVERVIEW FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, P.A., a Florida Corporation, (assignee of Chapman, Sherri), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 12-CC-28390. October 3, 2014. Honorable Gaston J. Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: Mishaal Patel, for Plaintiff. Jarod L. Gilbert, for Defendant.ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FORCONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITHCOURT ORDER: (“Order on Defendant’s Motion to CompelBetter Responses to Defendant’s Request to Produceand Interrogatories” dated June 18, 2014)
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on September 24, 2014 on Defendant’s Motion for Contempt for Failing to Comply with Court Order: (“Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Request to Produce and Interrogatories” dated June 18, 2014), and the Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised, finds the following:Facts
Riverview Family Chiropractic Center, P.A. (“Plaintiff”) has brought this breach of contract action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant”) for Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits under an insurance policy providing such benefits to Sherri Chapman (“Insured”). Defendant has denied the material allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and has asserted its affirmative defense(s).
On or about January 22, 2013, Defendant served its First Request to Produce and First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. (Hereafter, collectively titled “Defendant’s First Discovery”). After receiving responses to Defendant’s First Discovery, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Better Responses. This motion was heard on June 9, 2014. After hearing, this Court issued an Order dated June 18, 2014 requiring Plaintiff to provide a better response to Request to Produce No. 11 and better answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 12, 17 within thirty (30) days. As such, Plaintiff’s better responses to Defendant’s First Discovery were due on July 18, 2014.
On August 1, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Contempt for Failing to Comply with Court Order Dated June 18, 2014 because it had yet to receive better responses from Plaintiff. Five days prior to hearing on said motion, Plaintiff partially complied by providing better Answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories. However, as of the hearing on said motion, Plaintiff had failed to provide a better response to Request to Produce No. 11. Based on the foregoing, sanctions are appropriate pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2).Analysis
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2) provides:
“If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or a person designated under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a) to testify on behalf of a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule or rule 1.360, the court in which the action is pending may make any of the following orders:
(A) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order.
(B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence.
(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts of them or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part of it, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.
(D) Instead of any of the foregoing orders or in addition to them, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to an examination made pursuant to rule 1.360(a)(1)(B) or subdivision (a)(2) of this rule.
(E) When a party has failed to comply with an order under rule 1.360(a)(1)(B) requiring that party to produce another for examination, the orders listed in paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this subdivision, unless the party failing to comply shows the inability to produce the person for examination.
Instead of any of the foregoing orders or in addition to them, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the failure, which may include attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
[Emphasis added]
The purpose of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure is to encourage the orderly movement of litigation. Kozel v. Ostendorf, D.P.M., 629 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993). It is essential that parties and their attorney’s adhere to filing deadlines and other procedural requirements to preserve an efficient judicial system. See id. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b) allows sanctions to be imposed for failure to obey discovery orders. Smith v. Spitale, 675 So.2d 207, 209 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D1346a]. A trial judge has broad discretion in determining appropriate sanctions for discovery violations, and the Court’s ruling will not be disturbed without an abuse of discretion. Michalak v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., et al., 923 So.2d 1277, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D931a].
In this case, this Court ordered Plaintiff to provide a better response to Defendant’s Request to Produce No. 11 and better answers to Defendant’s Interrogatory Nos. 3, 12, 17 within thirty (30) days from this Court’s June 18, 2014 Oder. Thus, said responses / answers were due on July 18, 2014. Plaintiff did not provide better answers to said Interrogatories until September 19, 2014 which was only five days prior to hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Contempt. Furthermore, as of the hearing on said motion, Plaintiff had yet to provide a better response to Request to Produce No. 11. As such, sanctions are appropriate based upon the foregoing rule and case law interpreting same. It is therefore:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Contempt for Failing to Comply with Court Order: (“Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Defendant’s Request to Produce and Interrogatories” dated June 18, 2014) is hereby Granted.
2. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this motion.
3. Plaintiff shall comply with this Court’s previous Order dated June 18, 2014 within twenty (20) days or be subject to additional sanctions.
4. Jurisdiction will be reserved to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees.
* * *
