Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Discovery Sanctions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge strikes answer and schedules damages hearing after discovery failures in dog-bite case
Summary
In Chauncey v. Hudson, Clayton County State Court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant’s answer for discovery noncompliance, placed the defendant and landlord in default, and set a damages proceeding; the court warned the pro se defendant about discovery obligations and evidence preservation.
Clayton County State Court granted a motion on June 4 striking Cedric Hudson’s answer for failure to comply with discovery in a dog-bite case filed by Chauncey.
Josh Samuels, attorney for the plaintiff, told the court the defendant repeatedly failed to respond to written discovery and missed or refused depositions despite an earlier court order to appear. "It's been pending for almost 3 years now," Samuels said, arguing that striking the answer was the only sanction that would cure the plaintiff’s prejudice and allow damages to be proven.
The defendant, Cedric Hudson, appeared pro se and told the court he had believed certain video evidence was in the courthouse file and was unaware of the requirement to provide opposing counsel with a copy. The judge explained the procedural responsibilities that accompany answering a lawsuit and the role of discovery in preparing for trial.
The court found the plaintiff had been prejudiced by the defendant's failures and granted the motion to strike the answer, putting Hudson and the landlord (Property Rental Company) in default. The court declined to award further sanctions such as attorney fees against the pro se defendant but instructed the plaintiff to indicate whether it will proceed to a bench or jury damages hearing. "If you put yourself at a disadvantage when you don't have an attorney... the part that I guess is most important is I can't treat you any differently than I would treat [an attorney]," Judge Tammy Long Hayward told Hudson.
The court directed the parties to file an order and scheduled a separate date to conduct the damages hearing so the defendant could attempt to challenge any damages presented. The judge warned Hudson about the 30-day window to challenge orders and urged him to consult rules or counsel if he planned to contest the default.
