Discovery Sanctions, Striking of Pleadings

In many civil litigation disputes — particularly factually complex cases — pre-trial discovery is cumbersome. Discovery is the fact-finding process (eg, depositions, interrogatories, requests for production, etc.) in a lawsuit. A lot of gamesmanship and dilatory tactics occur in discovery.

In Missouri, “[a] trial court has an obligation to ensure that discovery rules are followed and to expedite litigation.” Noble v. L.D. Enterprises, Inc., 687 S.W.3d 11, 18 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024). To that end, Rule 61 authorizes various sanctions for failure to answer interrogatories, requests for admission, requests for production, and comply with deposition obligations. See Rule 61.01. Indeed, “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.” Noble, 687 S.W.3d at 18. “For purposes of Rule 61.01, [a]n evasive or incomplete answer to an interrogatory is considered a failure to answer.” Cosby v. Cosby, 202 S.W.3d 717, 721 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006).

If warranted, the trial court even has the discretion to strike a party’s pleadings. This basically means that the party can lose the case because of one or more significant discovery violations. This is within the trial court’s discretion. There is no abuse of discretion in striking pleadings where the record sufficiently demonstrates both: (1) the disobedient party engaged in a pattern of repeated disregard of the obligation to comply with the rules of discovery and (2) prejudice to the opposing party. Frontenac Bank v. GB Investments, LLC, 528 S.W.3d 381, 390 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).