ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court affirmed a trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in striking the appellant's pleadings due to its repeated noncompliance with discovery orders and that the issue regarding the show-cause hearing was not preserved for review.
"In Point I, Appellant argues the trial court erred in striking its pleadings because the sanction was in excess of what was necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery," Judge Michael S. Wright wrote in the decision. "Point II contends the trial court erred because the trial court did not allow a record to be made at the show-cause hearing."
Judges John P. Torbitzky and James M. Dowd concurred with Wright in the Aug. 13 decision.
Wright wrote that the court denies Point I because the record supports that the appellant demonstrated a pattern of "contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court..."
"As to Point II, we do not reach the merits because Appellant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review," he wrote.
In the appeal, O.W. Partners challenged the trial court's decision to strike its pleadings and enter a default judgment in favor of Innovated Construction as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery requests.
The point of the appeal focuses on whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing such severe sanctions and whether the appellant was allowed to make a record at the show-cause hearing.
The dispute began when Vetter Construction Company sued Innovated Construction for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Innovated, in turn, filed a third-party petition against O.W., alleging breach of contract related to the construction of a gas station.
O.W. failed to respond timely to the third-party petition, prompting Innovated to seek a default judgment. Although O.W. eventually responded, the case proceeded with ongoing discovery disputes.
Innovated served interrogatories and a request for production on O.W. in November 2022. When O.W. failed to respond, Innovated filed a motion to compel, which the court granted in January 2023, ordering O.W. to comply within 10 days.
O.W.'s continued noncompliance led Innovated to file a motion for sanctions in February 2023.
Despite being ordered to provide a "complete and verified response" to Interrogatory No. 6, O.W. failed to do so, resulting in the trial court striking its pleadings and entering a default judgment.
O.W. argued that striking its pleadings was excessive and not necessary to fulfill the purpose of discovery.
The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that O.W. demonstrated a pattern of deliberate disregard for the court's authority by repeatedly failing to comply with discovery orders.
The court emphasized that Rule 61.01 grants trial courts broad discretion in imposing sanctions for discovery violations, and there was no requirement for the trial court to explore lesser sanctions before striking the pleadings.
The record supported the conclusion that Innovated was prejudiced by O.W's actions, which caused delays and impeded Innovated's ability to prepare for trial.
O.W. contends that the trial court erred by not allowing a record to be made at the show-cause hearing.
The appellate court did not address the merits of this argument because O.W. failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. There was no indication that O.W. requested an evidentiary hearing or filed post-judgment motions raising this concern. As such, the issue was not properly before the appellate court.
"Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed," Wright wrote in the decision.
Lester Stuckmeyer Jr. represented O.W. Bryan M. Kaemmerer represented Innovated Construction.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED111965