{ "id": 8525098, "name": "ROBERT T. CARPENTER v. GEORGE H. COOKE, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Juan C. Cooke, Deceased; EDITH ANN CARPENTER v. GEORGE H. COOKE, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Juan C. Cooke, Deceased", "name_abbreviation": "Carpenter v. Cooke", "decision_date": "1982-07-20", "docket_number": "No. 8114SC1036", "first_page": "381", "last_page": "385", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "58 N.C. App. 381" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 888", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570031, 8570013, 8570054, 8570087 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0304-02", "/nc/297/0304-01", "/nc/297/0304-03", "/nc/297/0304-04" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 N.C. App. 721", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554617 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/39/0721-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "200" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557249 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 U.S. 495", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6158152 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/329/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 U.S. 677", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6166290 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/356/0677-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563206, 8563309, 8563249, 8563122, 8563285 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0557-02", "/nc/300/0557-05", "/nc/300/0557-03", "/nc/300/0557-01", "/nc/300/0557-04" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549082 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0067-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 483, "char_count": 9387, "ocr_confidence": 0.811, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8694327587453925e-07, "percentile": 0.8426887050171651 }, "sha256": "eab8ef6a4c6ad0eb15041456c71ea74525dcd4cc72318f8821cdb5294c390f4f", "simhash": "1:036fb2a8ae249dc1", "word_count": 1516 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:52.636886+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges VAUGHN and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "ROBERT T. CARPENTER v. GEORGE H. COOKE, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Juan C. Cooke, Deceased; EDITH ANN CARPENTER v. GEORGE H. COOKE, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Juan C. Cooke, Deceased" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.\nThe determinative issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs\u2019 action for failure to comply with its order to compel discovery. We uphold the decision of the trial court.\nRule 37, N.C. Rules of Civ. Proc., provides for sanctions for failure to make discovery. Rule 37(a)(3) states that \u201c[f]or the purposes of this subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.\u201d Rule 37(b) provides as follows:\n(b) Failure to comply with order.\u2014\n(1) * * *\n(2) Sanctions by Court in Which Action is Pending. \u2014 If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under section (a) of this rule or Rule 35, a judge of the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:\nA. * * *\nB. * * *\nC. An order . . . dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, . . . .;\n(c) * * *\n(d) ... If a party . . . fails ... to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33 after proper service of the interrogatories, . . . the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action authorized under subdivisions a, b, and c of subsection (b)(2) of this rule.\nRule 41(b), N.C. Rules of Civ. Proc., states that for \u201cfailure of the plaintiff ... to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim therein against him.\u201d Clearly the trial court had the authority to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 claims for noncompliance with its order compelling discovery. See Laing v. Loan Co., 46 N.C. App. 67, 264 S.E. 2d 381, disc. rev. denied, 300 N.C. 557 (1980).\nThe next question is whether the facts found by Judge Braswell support the judgment dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 complaint pursuant to Rule 37(b), N.C. Rules of Civ. Proc. Judge Braswell considered both the original answers and the supplemental answers filed by plaintiffs in determining that the answers to numbers 8 and 11(a) were \u201cunresponsive, incomplete and evasive and are deemed to be no answer under Rule 37(a)(3), N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d These interrogatories were needed to establish the applicability of various statutes of limitations by ascertaining whether plaintiffs were bringing their actions on the claim filed with decedent\u2019s administrator CTA, or whether that claim was repudiated by omission from the amended complaint which did not seek the same relief. Interrogatories numbers 8 and 11(a) sought to elicit an itemization by dates, nature and amounts of the actions alleged by plaintiffs, and to determine if those dates and amounts correspond to the itemization of the \u201cclaim notice\u201d referred to by plaintiffs. These answers were crucial to the defense\u2019s preparation in identifying claims that could be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. From plaintiffs\u2019 answers it was impossible to determine on which claim they were bringing their action.\nOne of the primary purposes of the discovery rules is to facilitate the disclosure prior to trial of any unprivileged information that is relevant and material to the lawsuit so as to permit the narrowing and sharpening of the basic issues and facts that will require trial. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1077 (1958); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); 4 Moore\u2019s Federal Practice \u00b6 26.02[1] (2d Ed. 1982); 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil \u00a7 2001 (1970). \u201cEmphasis in the new rules is not on gamesmanship, but on expeditious handling of factual information before trial so that the critical issues may be presented at trial unencumbered by unnecessary or specious issues and so that evidence at trial may flow smoothly and objections and other interruptions be minimized.\u201d Willis v. Power Co., 291 N.C. 19, 34, 229 S.E. 2d 191, 200 (1976).\nWhen viewed in light of the purposes of discovery, plaintiffs\u2019 evasive and incomplete answers cannot be justified. Plaintiffs nowhere attempt to argue that the disputed questions were not relevant or material to the resolution of a key issue in this case. Nor do they offer any justifiable excuse for failure to comply with the discovery order. See, Telegraph Co. v. Griffin, 39 N.C. App. 721, 251 S.E. 2d 885, disc. rev. denied, 297 N.C. 304 (1979).\nOur courts have held that \u201cthe discovery rules \u2018should be construed liberally\u2019 so as to substantially accomplish their purposes.\u201d Telegraph Co. supra at 727, 251 S.E. 2d 888. See also Willis, supra. The administration of these rules lies necessarily within the province of the trial courts; Rule 37 allowing the trial court to impose sanctions is flexible, and \u201c \u2018broad discretion must be given to the trial judge with regard to sanctions.\u2019 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil \u00a7 2284 at 765 (1970). See also 4A Moore\u2019s Federal Practice, \u00b6 37.03 [2.7] (2d Ed. 1978).\u201d Telegraph Co. v. Griffin, supra.\nWe find that the sanctions imposed by the trial court were proper. The judgment of the trial court is\nAffirmed.\nJudges VAUGHN and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Richard N. Weintraub for the plaintiff-appellants.", "Roger S. Upchurch for the defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROBERT T. CARPENTER v. GEORGE H. COOKE, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Juan C. Cooke, Deceased; EDITH ANN CARPENTER v. GEORGE H. COOKE, Administrator CTA of the Estate of Juan C. Cooke, Deceased\nNo. 8114SC1036\n(Filed 20 July 1982)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 37\u2014 failure to make discovery \u2014 dismissal of actions \u2014 proper\nThe trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 actions against the administrator of an estate for failure to comply with its order to compel discovery since (1) under G.S. 1A-1, Rules 37 and 41(b) the trial court had the authority to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 claims for noncompliance with its order compelling discovery, and (2) plaintiffs\u2019 evasive and incomplete answers to interrogatories could not be justified since nowhere did they attempt to argue that the disputed questions were not relevant or material to the resolution of a key issue in the case and they did not offer any justifiable excuse for failure to comply with the discovery order.\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs from Braswell, Judge. Judgment entered 15 June 1981 in Superior Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 May 1982.\nJuan C. Cooke died testate in October, 1976, and George H. Cooke duly qualified as her administrator CTA. On 1 August 1977, plaintiffs filed these actions against the administrator CTA seeking recovery for personal services allegedly performed for decedent since 1954. A copy of a \u201cclaim notice\u201d was attached to each of the original complaints, the claim of Robert T. Carpenter purporting to itemize by date, nature and amounts the various elements of his alleged cause of action. Defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff Robert T. Carpenter, and default judgment was rendered on the counterclaims for failure of a reply, which default judgment later was vacated.\nBy permission of the Court, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint, to which no \u201cclaim notice\u201d or other itemization was attached. In the case of Robert T. Carpenter, the \u201cclaim notice\u201d attached to his original complaint had itemized claims subtotalling $7,200.00, $7,386.60 and $976.60, for a total of $15,563.20, but his original complaint alleges that he had filed a claim for $8,363.20, and prayed for judgment of $15,863.20; while his amended complaint, without itemization or claim notice, prayed for judgment of $15,000.00. In the case of Edith Ann Carpenter, her \u201cclaim notice\u201d and original complaint claimed $7,200.00, while her amended complaint without itemization or claim notice, prayed for judgment of $15,000.00. Defendant answered each of the amended complaints denying the material allegations and raising affirmative defenses including payment, statutes of limitation and the statute of frauds. Counterclaims were filed against the plaintiff Robert T. Carpenter.\nDefendant served interrogatories on each plaintiff, and thereafter each plaintiff served interrogatories on the defendant. Defendant in apt time answered all of the interrogatories of both plaintiffs. Plaintiffs failed to answer any of defendant\u2019s interrogatories within the time allowed. An order compelling discovery was entered by D. B. Herring, Jr., Judge Presiding, which found the plaintiffs\u2019 failure unjustified and ordered plaintiffs\u2019 actions to be dismissed unless the interrogatories were answered by 28 April 1981. On 28 April 1981 plaintiffs served some answers to interrogatories. On 8 May 1981, defendant served a motion to dismiss, to compel discovery and for expenses of motion; and on 19 May 1981, plaintiffs served some supplemental answers to defendant\u2019s interrogatories. Defendant\u2019s motions to dismiss, to compel discovery and for expenses of motion were calendared for hearing by request of defendant\u2019s counsel dated and served on 8 May 1981, and came on for hearing before E. Maurice Braswell, Judge Presiding, at the regular call of the calendar on 2 June 1981.\nJudge Braswell, making findings of fact and conclusions of law, entered an order dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 actions for failure to comply with the discovery order. From this judgment, plaintiffs appealed.\nRichard N. Weintraub for the plaintiff-appellants.\nRoger S. Upchurch for the defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0381-01", "first_page_order": 413, "last_page_order": 417 }