Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Kevin L. Likes Auburn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jane E. Malloy William A. Ramsey Fort Wayne, Indiana

In the

FILED
Jan 18 2012, 12:08 pm
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

Indiana Supreme Court
No. 02S03-1201-CT-27 RICKEY D. WHITAKER,

CLERK

Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. TRAVIS M. BECKER, Appellee (Defendant below).

Appeal from the Allen Circuit Court, No. 02C01-0812-CT-40 The Honorable Thomas J. Felts, Judge The Honorable Craig J. Bobay, Magistrate On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 02A03-1006-CT-303

January 18, 2012 Shepard, Chief Justice.

After an automobile collision in which Travis Becker struck Rickey Whitaker from behind, Whitaker filed suit for personal injuries. Over the next year, Whitaker's lawyer ignored repeated requests to provide information about his client's medical treatment, finally responded only after the trial court ordered him to do so, and then supplied false and misleading information, and did so in a way that palpably

damaged the defendant's ability to ascertain the facts necessary to litigate the only real issue in the case. Becker filed a motion for sanctions, seeking dismissal of Whitaker's suit. The trial court found that both Whitaker and his lawyer had acted in bad faith and concluded that dismissal was the only realistic and effective remedy. It dismissed the case. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On December 19, 2008, Rickey D. Whitaker filed suit against Travis M. Becker and Roger R. Becker, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries. Whitaker alleged that on December 21, 2006, Travis was driving Roger's vehicle negligently, and that Travis crashed into Whitaker's vehicle from behind as a result. The trial court later dismissed Roger from the suit on March 24, 2009, leaving Travis as the sole defendant. On January 19, 2009, Becker's counsel sent Whitaker's counsel a set of interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Becker's counsel indicated that Indiana Trial Rule 33 required Whitaker to answer by February 23, 2009.1 Whitaker's counsel neither responded nor requested an extension of time to respond. Three separate times, on April 14, April 29, and May 12, 2009, Becker's counsel wrote to Whitaker's lawyer, reminding him that his responses were overdue. (Appellant's App. at 71

Download Rickey D. Whitaker v. Travis M. Becker.pdf

Indiana Law