Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discovery Sanctions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court will consider whether discovery sanction that struck defendant’s pleadings was proper
Summary
In a contested civil case, the court heard arguments over a discovery-sanction order that stripped a defendant’s pleadings. Counsel asked the judge to vacate the sanction under Rule 60 and case law; the judge took the matter under advisement to review legal authorities and the record.
A Cheatham County judge took under advisement competing arguments about whether a discovery sanction that struck a defendant’s pleadings was legally justified and whether the sanction should be set aside under Rule 60 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
Counsel for the defendant, William Romkey, asked the court to vacate a May 2, 2024 order that struck his client’s pleadings as a discovery sanction. The defendant’s counsel argued at length that the sanctions order lacked the factual findings and proportionality analysis required by controlling authority (counsel cited appellate decisions including Asani, Mercer, and Adams in support) and therefore the order was void or should be vacated under Rule 60. Counsel described the sanction order as "bare-bones" and urged that the record does not show the court conducted the analysis required before imposing a final sanction of striking pleadings.
Opposing counsel responded that the defendant repeatedly failed to attend noticed depositions and that the record shows multiple missed appearances and additional opportunities to engage; counsel argued the defendant provided no supporting affidavits or medical documentation to justify relief under Rule 60(1) (mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect), and urged the court to enforce the sanction. Opposing counsel also said the defendant had not appealed or filed other post-judgment motions in a timely fashion.
At the close of arguments the judge said he would need to review the briefs and appellate cases cited and take the matter under advisement. The judge noted that he would determine whether the sanction order contained the required findings and whether any procedural infirmity justified relief. The judge stated, "I'm gonna take the matter under advisement," and asked the parties to be ready to proceed further if the court determines a remand or evidentiary hearing is required.
Why this matters: Striking a party’s pleadings is among the most severe discovery sanctions a trial court can impose. Appellate precedent requires courts to make specific findings and to evaluate whether lesser remedies would suffice. If the trial court finds error in the original sanction order, the appropriate remedy may be to vacate the sanction and remand for further proceedings rather than allow a default or dismissal to stand without the required findings.
Next steps: The judge will review the filed memoranda and cited authorities and either issue a written order or schedule further proceedings to resolve factual disputes about whether the sanction was imposed in compliance with applicable law.
