ATLANTA (Legal Newsline) – A Georgia dental practice accused of making 11 children ill with contaminated water will not be able to mount a defense as punishment for discovery violations.
The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled Jan. 4 against Dentistry for Children of Georgia LLC and D4C Dental Brands, finding the trial court did not err in issuing the sanction. The defendants failed to respond to four discovery requests, which the trial court decided was done willfully.
If the plaintiffs are able to present evidence to support their claims, those defendants will not be allowed to present a defense. They argued there was no reason for such a harsh sanction and pointed to mitigating circumstances – a personal tragedy suffered by one of their lawyers.
“But counsel’s personal tragedy does not explain the failure to respond before the tragedy or after,” Judge Chris McFadden wrote.
Children and their guardians sued Dentistry for Children of Georgia and D4C, as well as several individual dentists, alleging water contaminated with bacteria was used in unnecessary dental procedures.
The plaintiffs said D4C failed respond to four discovery requests in 2019 that asked for certain documents. When they weren’t answered, the plaintiffs’ lawyers sent them again on July 8, 2019.
In February 2020, having received no response, the plaintiffs moved for sanctions. Four months later, the defendants fulfilled the discovery request.
“In the meantime, while their answers to discovery were outstanding, the corporate defendants served close to 100 requests for production of documents to non-parties and noticed the depositions of 18 of the guardian plaintiffs,” McFadden wrote.
Their failure to respond was accidental or involuntary, the defendants said, but that was contradicted by a 2019 message indicating they planned to respond after the July reminder from the plaintiffs’ lawyer was sent.
And the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the sanctions weren’t warranted because the plaintiffs weren’t prejudiced by the lack of response.
“(T)he plaintiffs were not required by Georgia law to show prejudice,” McFadden wrote. “And the cases the corporate defendants cite in support of their argument that the sanction imposed was manifestly unjust are distinguishable. Three of them do not involve discovery sanctions.”