The purpose of discovery is to enable the parties to understand their opponent’s case as clearly as possible
in order to encourage settlement, and to allow a trial to uncover all relevant facts with a minimum of
surprises. Discovery includes (1) sworn answers to written questions; (2) depositions consisting of sworn
testimony taken out of court; (3) production of documents and physical objects; and (4) physical and
mental examination. To emphasize these points, students might consider the case of Smiles v Coastal
Insurance Company that is woven throughout the chapter.
Question: In Smiles v Coastal Insurance Company, what critical discovery ruling helps Coastal
Insurance?
Question: Why is the ruling so important?
Answer: It ends the plaintiff’s hope for a class action. Without discovery on other claims that the
Question: What critical ruling helps plaintiff Beth Smiles?
Answer: The judge reduces Coastal’s depositions to only ten. Coastal’s attorney decides not to depose
Question: If Coastal learned of Bergson’s story after it settled the case or lost at trial could it re-open
the lawsuit on the grounds it had new information?
Case: Stinton v. Robin’s Wood, Inc.2
Facts: Ethel Flanzraich, 78 years old, slipped and fell on the steps of property owned by Robin’s Wood.
She broke her left leg and left arm. Flanzraich sued, claiming that Robin’s Wood caused her fall by
negligently painting the stairs. The defendant’s employee, Anthony Monforte, had painted the steps. In its
answer to the complaint, Robin’s Wood denied all the significant allegations.
During a preliminary conference with the trial judge, the parties agreed to hold depositions of both parties
on August 4. Flanzraich appeared for deposition, but Robin’s Wood did not furnish its employee,
Monforte, nor did it offer any other company representative. The court then ordered the deposition of the
defendant to take place the following April 2. Again, Robin’s Wood produced neither Monforte nor
anyone else. On July 16, the court ordered the defendant to produce its representative within 30 days.
Once more, no one showed up for deposition.
On August 18—over one year after the original deposition date—Flanzraich moved to strike the
defendant’s answer, meaning that the plaintiff would win by default. The company argued that it had
made diligent efforts to locate Monforte and force him to appear. However, all the letters sent to Monforte
were addressed care of Robin’s Wood. Finally, the company stated that it no longer employed Monforte.
The trial judge granted the motion to strike the answer. That meant that Robin’s Wood was liable for
Flanzraich’s fall. The only remaining issue was damages. The court determined that Robin’s Wood owed
$22,631 for medical expenses, $150,000 for past pain and suffering, and $300,000 for future pain and
suffering. One day later, Flanzraich died of other causes. Robin’s Wood appealed.
Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by striking the defendant’s answer?
Decision: No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.
2 45 A.D. 3d 203, 842 NYS2d 477, New York App. Div., 2007.