Quentin Thomas Henry v. Greater Ouachita Water Company

Judgment rendered September 21, 2022.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 54,708-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

QUENTIN THOMAS HENRY, ET AL Plaintiffs-Appellants

versus

GREATER OUACHITA WATER COMPANY Defendant-Appellee

*****

Appealed from the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 20152305

Honorable Daniel J. Ellender, Judge

*****

OFFICE OF ANTHONY J. BRUSCATO Counsel for Appellants
By: Anthony J. Bruscato

GEIGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC Counsel for Appellee,
By: Ernest P. Gieger, Jr. Greater Ouachita Water
Nicholas S. Bergeron Company
John E. W. Baay, II
J. Michael DiGiglia

STEWART LAW GROUP, LLC
By: Arthur Lane Stewart

BREITHAUPT, DUNN, DUBOS, SHAFTO
& WOLLESON, LLC
By: Michael Lee Dubos
Jared S. Scheinuk

PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP Counsel for Appellee,
By: Steven J. Levine Inframark, LLC
J. Alan Harrell
David J. Topping

*****

Before THOMPSON, ROBINSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

MARCOTTE, J.

This appeal arises from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ouachita

Parish, the Honorable Daniel Ellender presiding. Plaintiffs appeal two

judgments of the trial court which together dismissed the claims of over

1,000 mass tort plaintiffs for failing to comply with discovery orders. For

the following reasons, the judgments are affirmed.

FACTS

The trial court rendered two judgments, dated July 13, 2021, and

November 8, 2021, dismissing the claims of 1,063 plaintiffs (collectively,

“appellants” or “plaintiffs”) filed against Greater Ouachita Water Company

(“GOWC”) and Inframark, LLC (“Inframark”) (collectively, “appellees” or

“defendants”) due to plaintiffs’ missing numerous discovery deadlines and

violating discovery orders. Plaintiffs are contract customers of Defendants

or household members living in the homes with which GOWC contracted to

provide service.

Suit was originally filed on August 4, 2015, by 19 plaintiffs who

alleged that they (or their property) were damaged or inconvenienced by

contaminated water supplied by GOWC. Following additional amended

petitions over the course of the following two years adding 5,665 plaintiffs,

the final plaintiff count stood at 5,684. In 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended

petition adding Inframark as a defendant, claiming that it had a management

agreement with GOWC regarding the operation of its water system. GOWC

and Inframark filed separate answers to plaintiffs’ multiple petitions. Once

the number of plaintiffs grew large, the parties reached an agreement

regarding discovery whereby plaintiffs would use an online accessible

“Plaintiff Fact Sheet/Database” (the “Database”), which contained a defined

list of questions and requests to upload documents for each plaintiff to

answer.

On December 14, 2018, the trial court signed a scheduling order

requiring all plaintiffs’ discovery responses be entered into the Database, in

staggered intervals, no later than August 15, 2019. The order provided a

process by which the parties could resolve any deficiencies in plaintiffs’

discovery responses. The order also allowed defendants to file motions to

compel for plaintiffs that were nonresponsive to discovery requests and

plaintiffs were ordered to correct any deficiencies within 30 days from the

trial court’s ruling. Defendants were permitted to file motions to dismiss

those plaintiffs whose discovery responses remained incomplete or

nonresponsive within 30 days of the deadline to correct as ordered by the

trial court on any motion to compel.

August 15, 2019, passed and 5,238 plaintiffs out of 5,684 had not

entered any information at all into the Database. On December 13, 2019,

GOWC and Inframark filed their first motion to compel as to the wholly

nonresponsive plaintiffs. In their motion, defendants stated that they

notified plaintiffs of deficient or missing discovery responses on September

13, 2018. On October 11, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel responded and detailed

their unsuccessful efforts to reach various plaintiffs to complete discovery.

The defendants asserted that over 90% of plaintiffs had not complied with

the scheduling order by completing any part of the plaintiff fact sheets.

Plaintiffs opposed defendants’ first motion to compel, stating that the

Database was “unworkable.” Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that their staff

spent “more than one thousand hours” trying to upload plaintiffs’ data into

the computer system without success. Plaintiffs attached to their opposition
2

the affidavits of two staff workers employed by plaintiffs’ counsel detailing

the limitations of the Database. In particular, the affidavits described a

problem with the Database where plaintiffs were required to provide their

addresses from 2005 to present, and plaintiffs could not move beyond that

screen without providing every address for that time period.

Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their first motion to

compel, stating that the first they heard of any deficiencies in the Database

was when plaintiffs referenced them in their opposition. Defendants argued

that at one time plaintiffs followed the protocol of contacting the database

developer to address any issues that arose, but that they had not done so

since November 4, 2019.

On January 31, 2020, plaintiffs filed their own motion to compel,

claiming that GOWC engaged in “classic discovery abuse by dumping

literally tens of thousands of pages of documents on plaintiffs without an

adequate index or identifying information.” Plaintiffs asked that the trial

court order defendants to produce a narrative answer to each interrogatory

propounded by plaintiffs and include an index for the documents already

provided to plaintiffs.

GOWC opposed plaintiffs’ motion to compel, arguing that plaintiffs

had repeatedly propounded additional discovery requests upon it, making it

necessary for GOWC to continuously supplement its responses to

interrogatories and requests for admission. GOWC stated that plaintiffs’

interrogatories were often broadly worded and included requests for

documents transmitted to various government agencies over a 15-year

period. GOWC contended that it had Bates-stamped the documents it

3

provided to plaintiffs, and often directed plaintiffs to particular Bates-

numbered pages or a range of pages.

On February 14, 2020, defendants filed a second motion to compel

wherein they sought to compel partially responsive plaintiffs to complete

and correct their discovery responses within 30 days of the ruling on the

second motion to compel. Defendants stated that the plaintiffs that were the

subject of their second motion to compel provided deficient entries on the

Database and were notified that they needed to correct the deficiencies, but

that they had not complied with the deadlines established in the trial court’s

scheduling order.

The trial court held a hearing on the defendants’ first motion to

compel on February 19, 2020. The trial court noted that the Database was in

place for almost two years by the time of the hearing and that the first time

that plaintiffs’ counsel informed the trial court that the database was faulty

was at the hearing.

On March 17, 2020, the trial court issued an order on both defendants’

and plaintiffs’ motions to compel, which it subsequently amended in a

superseding order dated June 1, 2020. The amended order: (1) granted

defendants’ first motion to compel and dismissed with prejudice 3,671

plaintiffs who had not entered any information into the Database; (2) granted

in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion to compel; (3) directed plaintiffs

to amend their petition to reflect that plaintiffs’ claims do not predate

January 1, 2012; and (4) ordered that discovery would proceed in written

form and that plaintiffs must answer discovery by May 15, 2020.1

1
Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent and request for a return date with the trial court in order to seek
supervisory review of the trial court’s March 17, 2020, order, and June 1, 2020, amended order.
Plaintiffs, however, did not file a writ with this court.
4

On June 5, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider or to amend

the judgment on their motion to compel. GOWC opposed the motion. On

August 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of time to answer

discovery seeking an additional 90 days to respond. Defendants opposed the

motion. Then, on October 12, 2020, the trial court entered an order denying

plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider or amend its prior order.

The trial court also granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’

request for an extension of time to answer discovery, ordering: (1) plaintiffs

to provide defendants, by October 30, 2020, with a list of those plaintiffs

that had not completed any form of discovery and those who were non-

communicative with plaintiffs’ counsel; (2) defendants to submit a judgment

of dismissal with prejudice of those same plaintiffs; (3) plaintiffs to submit,

by November 30, 2020, draft interrogatory responses from plaintiffs who

had not yet submitted interrogatory responses; and (4) the remaining

plaintiffs to provide defendants with completed, final, verified responses to

requests for production of documents by December 31, 2020.

On November 5, 2020, the trial court rendered an order dismissing 74

plaintiffs who had not completed any form of discovery response and whom

plaintiffs’ counsel were unable to communicate with despite their best

efforts, as detailed in the trial court’s October 12, 2020, ruling.

December 31, 2020, passed and plaintiffs still had not provided any

final, verified interrogatory responses or final responses to requests for

production since the trial court’s October 12, 2020, judgment, prompting

defendants to file their third motion to compel on January 12, 2021. In their

motion, defendants sought to have those plaintiffs that still had not provided

verified, complete responses to interrogatories and requests for production of
5

documents dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs opposed defendants’ third

motion to compel.

On April 15, 2021, the trial court granted defendants’ third motion to

compel. The trial court’s ruling dismissed with prejudice 704 plaintiffs who

did not provide draft interrogatory responses to defendants by November 30,

2020, and who did not provide produce final, verified discovery responses

by April 1, 2021. The trial court’s ruling further ordered the remaining

plaintiffs (other than the 58 who produced final, verified discovery responses

on March 31, 2021) to produce final, verified discovery responses along

with all responsive documents by April 30, 2021. Plaintiffs were warned

that those who failed to comply would be dismissed with prejudice. The

trial court set a hearing date of May 11, 2021, to address those plaintiffs who

did not comply with the April 30, 2021, deadline.

On May 27, 2021, the trial court signed a judgment related to

defendants’ third motion to compel. That judgment dismissed all remaining

plaintiffs who did not submit to defendants signed and notarized affidavits

dated on or before April 30, 2021. The trial court reserved the dismissals

pending a hearing set for June 18, 2021.

In anticipation of the hearing, defendants filed a memorandum on

June 1, 2021, arguing that the only plaintiffs whose claims should not be

dismissed for failing to comply with the trial court’s discovery orders

requiring final, verified discovery responses were the 57 plaintiffs who

provided such responses by March 31, 2021. Defendants further argued that

the approximately 857 plaintiffs who provided verification affidavits dated

April 30, 2021, or earlier should be dismissed, “because the affidavits that

plaintiffs now intend for defendants to match up with prior draft Excel
6

interrogatory responses are insufficient and lack any responses to requests

for production.” Defendants stated that each affidavit submitted by the 857

plaintiffs they referenced attested that each particular plaintiff had “read the

foregoing answers to interrogatories and requests for production of

documents,” but that no such discovery responses were attached to the

affidavits. Rather, plaintiffs’ counsel intended for defendants to match each

affidavit to draft interrogatory responses contained in an Excel spreadsheet.

Finally, defendants argued that many of the affidavits were defective.

On June 10, 2021, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition

wherein they reiterated their complaints about defendants’ responses to

plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Plaintiffs argued the so-called “rough draft”

discovery responses included those that defendants flagged as deficient, but

plaintiffs did not necessarily agree that those responses were deficient.

Plaintiffs stated that due to the COVID pandemic they provided the

discovery responses in an Excel spreadsheet instead of as a hard copy.

Finally, plaintiffs disputed defendants’ claims that the affidavits were

deficient.

On June 17, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for permission to offer

evidence for the trial court to consider at the June 18, 2021, hearing, which

included affidavits and/or testimony about the allegedly contaminated water

supplied by GOWC. At the hearing, the trial court stated that it would allow

plaintiffs to proffer the additional evidence, but that the court would not

consider it.

On July 13, 2021, the trial court entered an order finding that 760

plaintiffs had not: (a) provided final, verified interrogatory responses or

responses to requests for production of documents to defendants by April 30,
7

2021; and (b) had not provided notarized affidavits dated on or before April

30, 2021, related to the 2020 draft interrogatory responses. Those plaintiffs

were dismissed with prejudice. All remaining plaintiffs (except the 57 that

produced final, verified discovery on March 31, 2021) were ordered to

produce to defendants by July 30, 2021, final, verified discovery responses

in the same format that the 57 plaintiffs produced on March 31, 2021. Those

plaintiffs that did not do so would be dismissed with prejudice. Finally, the

trial court ordered plaintiffs to pay $10,000 ($5,000 per defendant) in fees

and costs associated with granting defendants’ third motion to compel.

On July 21, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial asking that the

claims of the 760 dismissed plaintiffs be reinstated. The trial court denied

the motion. On September 30, 2021, the trial court issued an order setting

an October 29, 2021, hearing for a determination of whether the remaining

plaintiffs adequately complied with the July 13, 2021, judgment, and, if not,

which plaintiffs were subject to dismissal with prejudice.

On November 8, 2021, the trial court issued a judgment in which it

dismissed with prejudice the claims of 307 plaintiffs who “failed to provide

final, verified interrogatory responses and responses to requests for

production, along with responsive documents, in the same format as the …

57 produced on March 31, [2021], by July 30, 2021, as previously ordered.”

The trial court further dismissed with prejudice the claims of 419 plaintiffs

who “failed to provide substantive responses to requests for production of

documents, as previously ordered, and instead responded ‘N/A’ to every

request for production of documents; notwithstanding the fact that a

significant portion of the requests … actually apply to them.”

8

Plaintiffs now appeal the July 13, 2021, and November 8, 2021,

judgments.

DISCUSSION

Appellants argue that the trial court impermissibly dismissed the

claims of over 1,000 plaintiffs for insufficient discovery responses when

GOWC was permitted to propound 178 interrogatories and 85 requests for

production. Appellants state that each plaintiff who was dismissed provided

answers in an online format and signed a verification attesting to the

accuracy of the answers. Appellants aver that each of the dismissed

plaintiffs signed releases authorizing GOWC to obtain their medical, social

security, and employment records.

Appellants state that there is no evidence that any individual plaintiff

was dilatory or at fault in responding to discovery, and that the only

evidence of fault is that of plaintiffs’ counsel. Appellants assert that the trial

court abused its discretion in dismissing those plaintiffs’ claims.

Appellants further argue that the only defendant that propounded

discovery was GOWC; however, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims

against Inframark. Plaintiffs state that Inframark did not propound discovery

and has no standing to complain about any “perceived deficiencies” in

plaintiffs’ discovery responses.

Lastly, appellants argue that GOWC was allowed to respond to their

discovery requests with a “document dump” consisting of 31,964 Bates-

stamped PDF pages and 248 boxes of documents in lieu of traditional

discovery responses. Appellants ask that the trial court’s rulings be reversed

and the case remanded for a trial on the merits.

9

Appellees argue that plaintiffs’ repeated noncompliance with

discovery orders over the course of nearly three years warranted dismissal

with prejudice. Appellees contend that the trial court’s two earlier

judgments informed plaintiffs that failing to produce complete, verified

discovery responses by certain dates would result in dismissal. Appellees

assert that plaintiffs cite no authority that precludes dismissal of their claims

against all defendants for violating court-ordered discovery related to

discovery requests originally propounded by one defendant, GOWC, when

the responses apply equally to both defendants. Appellees also argue that

GOWC and Inframark jointly filed motions to compel, participated in each

hearing, and were part of each judgment, without any corresponding

objection from plaintiffs.

Finally, appellees aver that plaintiffs’ brief addresses issues that either

are not relevant to the issues appealed or were not raised with the trial court

and should thus be disregarded. Appellees seek a ruling from this Court

affirming the trial court’s judgments.

It is well settled that a trial court is vested with inherent power to

maintain control of its docket. Boykins v. Boykins, 04-0999, p. 5 (La. App. 4

Cir. 4/24/07), 958 So. 2d 70, 74, writ denied, 07-1302 (La. 9/28/07), 964 So.

2d 369 (“A trial judge has wide discretion in controlling his docket”). This

court has likewise recognized a trial court's vast discretion with respect to

imposing sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders. Wells v.

State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., 41,836, p. 3 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/7/07),

954 So. 2d 234, 236 (“The trial court has broad discretion in regulating

pretrial discovery, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a

clear abuse of that discretion”). Generally, an abuse of discretion results
10

from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner. Jones v.

LSU/EA Conway Med. Ctr., 45,410 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/11/10), 46 So. 3d 205.

The word “arbitrary” implies a disregard of evidence or of the proper weight

thereof. Id. A conclusion is “capricious” when there is no substantial

evidence to support it or the conclusion is contrary to substantiated

competent evidence. Id.

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,

whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to

the claim or defense of any other party. La. C.C.P. art. 1422. To this end,

GOWC sought to discover the factual basis and evidentiary support for

plaintiffs’ contaminated water claims; i.e., that plaintiffs and/or their

property were damaged by contaminated water supplied to their homes and

businesses by GOWC.

Where a party fails to answer an interrogatory or respond to a request

for production, a trial court may issue an order compelling discovery on the

motion of a party. La. C.C.P. art. 1469(2). For these purposes, an evasive or

incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer. La. C.C.P. art.

1469(3). Thereafter, where a party fails to obey a trial court order

compelling discovery, the trial court may make such orders in regard to the

failure as are just, including any of the following:

(1) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or
any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the
purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party
obtaining the order.

(2) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or
oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from
introducing designated matters in evidence.

11

(3) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further
proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a final default
judgment against the disobedient party upon presentation of proof
as required by Article 1702.

(4) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an
order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders
except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

(5) Where a party has failed to comply with an order under Article
1464, requiring him to produce another for examination, such
orders as are listed in Subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this
Paragraph, unless the party failing to comply shows that he is
unable to produce such person for examination.

La. C.C.P. art. 1471(A).

There is a distinction between the sanctions available for failure to

comply with discovery and the sanctions available for disobedience of court-

ordered discovery. Alcorn v. Duncan, 49,964 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/26/15), 175

So. 3d 1014, writ denied, 15-1929 (La. 11/20/15), 180 So. 3d 1288. A party

may seek a court order compelling a response to discovery under La. C.C.P.

art. 1469, and if the order is granted, the mover may recover the reasonable

costs and attorney fees incurred in obtaining the order. La. C.C.P. art.

1469(A)(4). However, if a party fails to obey such an order by the trial court

to provide or permit discovery, the trial court may impose the more severe

sanctions set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 1471. By its express terms, La. C.C.P.

art. 1471 grants these remedies only when a trial court order compelling

discovery is in effect and a party has failed to obey the order. BancorpSouth

Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, L.L.C., 13-1396 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/1/14), 155 So.

3d 614, writ denied, 14-2470 (La. 2/27/15), 159 So. 3d 1067. Criteria to be

considered in imposing sanctions under La. C.C.P. art. 1471 are the

prejudice to the other party and the willfulness of the disobedient party.

Horton v. McCary, 93-2315 (La. 4/11/94), 635 So.2d 199, 204.
12

Dismissal is a sanction of last resort only to be imposed where a party

has failed to comply with a court order of discovery and only after an

opportunity to be heard has been afforded the litigant. Hutchinson v.

Westport Ins. Corp., 04-1592 (La. 11/8/04), 886 So. 2d 438. Before taking

the drastic action of dismissal for violation of a discovery order, a trial court

should consider the following four factors: (1) whether the violation was

willful or resulted from inability to comply; (2) whether less drastic

sanctions would be effective; (3) whether the violations prejudiced the

opposing party's trial preparation; and (4) whether the client participated in

the violation or simply misunderstood a court order or innocently hired a

derelict attorney. BancorpSouth Bank v. Kleinpeter Trace, L.L.C., supra.

Plaintiffs’ contemptuous failure to comply with the court-ordered

discovery falls squarely into the mandates of Article 1471 as a “fail[ure] to

obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” La. C.C.P. art. 1471.

Likewise, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “[l]itigants cannot

refuse to make a good faith effort to respond to discovery; if they do[,] they

run the risk of incurring sanctions, up to and including dismissal and

default.” Hutchinson, supra at p.4, 886 So.2d at 441. Accordingly, the trial

court's dismissal of the noncompliant plaintiffs was a remedy available to

the trial court pursuant to the plain language of La. C.C.P. art. 1471(A)(3).

The discovery at issue in this case was initially propounded on

November 11, 2016, and the Database became available for plaintiffs’

counsel staff to use on March 7, 2018. Despite numerous attempts over the

course of three years to obtain the information sought, which information

concerned the essential elements of their claim, plaintiffs’ responses were

either wholly absent or only partially complete. At the time of the July 13,
13

2021, and November 8, 2021, judgments, plaintiffs had either not responded

at all or provided incomplete responses on the Database that had been

available to them since March 7, 2018.

Although dismissal was the harshest sanction available to the trial

court for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with its order compelling discovery,

most of the less-severe alternatives available under La. C.C.P. art. 1471

would have yielded essentially the same result. For instance, the trial court

could have chosen to order that certain facts relating to plaintiffs’

contaminated water claims were established as proven for purposes of the

litigation in GOWC’s favor (La. C.C.P. art. 1471(A)(1)); it could have

prohibited plaintiffs from presenting evidence in support of their

contaminated water claims (La. C.C.P. art. 1471(A)(2)); or it could have

chosen to strike their allegations of contaminated water from the pleadings

(La. C.C.P. art. 1471(A)(3)). However, any of these sanctions, if imposed

by the trial court, would ultimately result in the dismissal of plaintiffs’

claims, since plaintiffs’ claims of damage caused by a contaminated water

supply were the central issue before the court.

Although the trial court could have chosen the least severe sanctions,

such as staying the action pending compliance with its discovery order (La.

C.C.P. art. 1471(A)(3)) or treating plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the

discovery order as contempt of court (La. C.C.P. art. 1471(A)(4)), these

remedies would not have been adequate. The Louisiana Supreme Court has

held that refusal to comply with court-ordered discovery is a serious matter,

and trial courts must have severe sanctions available to deter litigants from

flouting discovery orders. Horton v. McCary, supra.

14

When a party has been given sufficient notice and opportunity to be

heard prior to the imposition of a penalty, the sanction of dismissal may be

within the bounds of the trial court’s discretion. Henson v. Copeland, 451

So. 2d 41 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984). In this case, the record reveals that

appellants were given more than sufficient notice and opportunity to be

heard prior to their dismissal. As detailed above, the trial court gave

appellants multiple chances to comply with its discovery orders, yet

appellants either did nothing or very little.

In Murungi v. Touro Infirmary, 12-0213 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/1/13), 110

So. 3d 1250, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing an action as a discovery sanction for the plaintiff’s pattern of

willful refusal to timely and adequately respond to discovery requests and

after previous motions to compel had been granted and the court had warned

the plaintiff of the consequences of failing to respond, including dismissal.

Similarly, in Wilson v. Brown Brother, 42,748 (La. App. 2 Cir.

12/5/07), 973 So. 2d 132, this court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the

plaintiff’s claim after plaintiff repeatedly failed to respond to discovery

requests and comply with the trial court’s orders regarding discovery. See

also Medical Review Panel Proceedings of Peter v. Touro Infirmary, 05-

0317 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/6/05), 913 So. 2d 131, writ denied, 05-2077 (La.

2/10/06), 924 So. 2d 170 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing action for failure to comply with discovery order compelling

answers to interrogatories when order specified that noncompliance would

result in dismissal); and Rice v. Sagrera, 95-155 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/31/95),

657 So. 2d 419, writ denied, 95-1657 (La. 10/6/95), 661 So. 2d 470

15

(dismissal was the appropriate sanction for repeated failure of plaintiff to

comply with court order to respond to discovery requests).

In this case, without cause or justification, and despite multiple court

orders, plaintiffs willfully failed to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Plaintiffs had years to comply with discovery and refused. The record is

devoid of any evidence that the dismissed plaintiffs made good faith efforts

to comply with the trial court’s orders regarding discovery. Instead, the

record reflects a silent refusal on their part to even attempt adequate

discovery responses.

Plaintiffs’ refusal to provide the most basic information about their

claim renders the opposing parties unable to value the case or prepare for

trial. Dismissal is appropriate. There is no other adequate remedy in this

case. The record supports a conclusion that plaintiffs’ failure to comply with

discovery was willful. We cannot say that the trial court abused its

discretion in dismissing these plaintiffs. If a trial court may not dismiss a

case with prejudice under circumstances involving as much prolonged

willful disobedience as exists in this case, then discovery rules and court-

orders enforcing them are meaningless.

The remaining issues raised in appellants’ appeal were not raised at

the trial court and thus are not properly before this Court. Knowles v.

Knowles, 51,872 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/18), 246 So. 3d 758, 765 (“This court

will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal”).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. The costs of the appeal are

assessed to Appellants.

AFFIRMED.
16

17