Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery in Missouri

Background

“A judge may impose sanctions against a party who fails to comply with discovery requests under Rule 61.01” (See Leahy v. Leahy (1993) 858 S.W.2d 221, 228.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“If a party . . . fails to produce documents and tangible things as requested under Rule 58.01, the discovering party may move for an order compelling compliance in accordance with the request.” (See Leahy v. Leahy (1993) 858 S.W.2d 221, 228.)

“If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion, or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them, to pay the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred by reason of the party's failure to permit such discovery and in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjustified.” (See id.)

“All provisions of this rule condition sanctions upon motion and reasonable notice to the other parties. Reasonable notice must provide an [o]pportunity for a litigant to present his views as to the matters instantly before the court which may affect his rights.” (See Ballesteros v. Johnson (1991) 812 S.W.2d 217, 224.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“While trial courts have inherent powers to sanction parties who act in bad faith, courts are encouraged to do so sparingly, wisely, temperately, and with judicial self-restraint.” (See State ex rel. Area 25 Trial Office v. Clayton (2021) 628 S.W.3d 263, 267.)

“Rule 61.01 gives trial courts significant discretion to impose sanctions that are just when a party fails to answer interrogatories, produce documents, or attend depositions.” (See Holm v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (2017) 514 S.W.3d 590, 596.)

“The imposition of sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders is a matter for the exercise of discretion by the trial court.” (See Schmelig Const. v. Mo. State Highway Com (1976) 543 S.W.2d 265, 270.)

“The rule expressly contemplates that a trial court may, in its discretion, sanction a party for such misconduct by striking pleadings, limiting the party's ability to present evidence or otherwise participate at trial, entering a default judgment against the disobedient party, and requiring the disobedient party to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by the other party in pursuing discovery.” (See Holm v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (2017) 514 S.W.3d 590, 596-97.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “the court may only sanction a party when that party has acted in bad faith.” (See A.J.H. v. M.A.H.S., No. ED96873, at *3 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2012).)

It is also well settled that “[s]anctions imposed under the court's inherent powers should be limited to situations in which it is reasonably necessary to preserve the court's existence and protect it in the orderly administration of its business.” (See Hale v. Cottrell, Inc. (2014) 456 S.W.3d 481, 488.)