Sanctions
Discovery-Related Sanctions
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Cherry v. Del Frisco’s Grille of Tennessee, LLC, No. M2022-00969-COA-R10-CV, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 28, 2023).
The decision to impose sanctions for the spoliation of evidence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Zukowski ex rel. Zukowski v. Hamilton Cty. Dep’t of Educ., 640 S.W.3d 505, 520 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021) (quoting precedent from the Tennessee Supreme Court). As for discretionary decisions generally, this Court has noted as follows:
A trial court abuses its discretion if it (1) applies an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaches an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) bases its decision on a clearly erroneous evaluation of the evidence. Elliott v. Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246, 249–50 (Tenn. 2010) (citation omitted); see also Walker v. Sunrise Pontiac–GMC Truck, Inc., 249 S.W.3d 301, 308 (Tenn. 2008) (citation omitted). Additionally, a trial court abuses its discretion if it “strays beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision.” Beecher, 312 S.W.3d at 524 (citing State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007)).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s discretionary decision to determine “(1) whether the factual basis for the decision is properly supported by evidence in the record, (2) whether the lower court properly identified and applied the most appropriate legal principles applicable to the decision, and (3) whether the lower court’s decision was within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions.” Id. at 524–25 (citing Flautt & Mann v. Council of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 856, 872–73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)). We review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. at 525 (citing Johnson v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 600, 604 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 212 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)). We review the trial court’s factual conclusions under the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Wofford v. M.J. Edwards & Sons Funeral Home Inc., 528 S.W.3d 524, 538 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Roberts v. McNeill, No. W2010-01000-COA-R9-CV, at *3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2011)).
Mikhail v. Mikhail, No. M2021-00500-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2023).
We review a trial court’s decision to impose discovery sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Mercer v. Vanderbilt Univ., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 121, 133 (Tenn. 2004). A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard, reaches “an illogical or unreasonable decision,” or bases its decision “on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010).
Little v City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, No. E2020-01414-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2022).
Whether to impose sanctions arising from discovery disputes is within the broad discretion of the trial court. See Strickland v. Strickland, 618 S.W.2d 496, 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (citations omitted) (“The trial court must have wide discretion in [discovery] matters.”). Stated another way, “[t]he trial court’s determination of the appropriate sanction to be imposed will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court commits an abuse of discretion.” Lyle v. Exxon Corp., 746 S.W.2d 694, 699 (Tenn. 1988) (citing Brooks v. United Unif. Co., 682 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1984)). Therefore, we review the trial court’s decision to impose monetary sanctions against the City pursuant to the very deferential abuse of discretion standard of review.
The abuse of discretion standard embodies two ideas: “First, it indicates that the trial court has the authority to choose among several legally permissible, sometimes even conflicting, answers. Second, it indicates that the appellate court will not interfere with the trial court’s decision simply because it did not choose the alternative the appellate court would have chosen.” BIF, a Div. of Gen. Signals Controls, Inc. v. Serv. Const. Co., Inc., No. 87-136-II, 1988 WL 72409, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 13, 1988) (citations omitted). Thus, the abuse of discretion standard does not allow reviewing courts to substitute their discretion for that of the trial court. Lee Med., Inc., 312 S.W.3d at 524.
Still, the abuse of discretion standard does not “immunize a lower court’s decision from any meaningful appellate scrutiny”:
To avoid result-oriented decisions or seemingly irreconcilable precedents, reviewing courts should review a [trial] court’s discretionary decision to determine (1) whether the factual basis for the decision is properly supported by evidence in the record, (2) whether the [trial] court properly identified and applied the most appropriate legal principles applicable to the decision, and (3) whether the [trial] court’s decision was within the range of acceptable alternative dispositions.
Id. at 524–25 (citations omitted).
When applying this framework, “we look first at whether the factual basis for the trial court’s decision is supported by evidence in the record.” Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 306 (Tenn. 2020) (citing Lee Med., 312 S.W.3d at 524). We “review the underlying factual findings using the preponderance of the evidence standard contained in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).” Lee Med., 312 S.W.3d at 525.
