Hatfield v. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for his failure to appear at two scheduled depositions
• recognizing that the rules of discovery are designed to “allow a liberal discovery process, the purposes of which are to provide parties with information essential to litigation of the issues, to eliminate surprise, and to promote settlement”
• no abuse of discretion where trial court dismissed case after witness failed to appear at two noticed depositions
• “Because Hatfield’s dismissal was an involuntary dismissal [as a sanction] pursuant to [Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure] 37(B), the trial court was not required to follow the notice requirements applicable to default judgments.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).