ÿWPC” …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 UP@ 0l 0Dü 0J@ 0TŠ 0^Þ 0h< 0r¤ 0| 0†’ 0 1u¨ 0d BU>žU6ÜB)DC; AM~U*Ëõ( D3+v~^vÓÜ 0@¯ AOïÆ> 0D D/H Bw˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLdÒ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ íîDïðñDòóDôUõVöÓ€Úƒç"3|x&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAugust€26,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ôÔRavenwoodððs€claim€was€ultimately€dismissed€by€the€trial€court.€€ThatÏdecision€was€not€appealed.Ì'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ P ÑÔ€#ÔÑ7€ܯXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßR€&(%A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌRAVENWOOD€PHASE€II€HOMEOWNERSà à€€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9705„CV„00156ÌASSOCIATION,€GEORGE€A.€BELLVILLE,)Ìand€SUSAN€L.€PATTON,à àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€APPEAL€AS€OF€RIGHT€FROM€THEÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€KNOX€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)ÌFRANKLIN€PROPERTY€I,€LTD.,à à€€€)Ìand€BILL€HODGES,€General€Partner,)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€HONORABLE€WHEELER€A.€ROSENBALMÌà àDefendants„Appellees.à à€€€)€JUDGEÌÌÌÌFor€Appellantsà àà àà àà àà àFor€AppelleesÌÌDONALD€E.€OVERTONà àà àà àà àCLARENCE€RISINÌGLENNA€W.€OVERTONà àà àà àà àSTEPHEN€G.€ANDERSONÌOverton€&€Overtonà àà àà àà àBaker,€Donelson,€Bearman€&ÌKnoxville,€Tennesseeà àà àà à€€CaldwellÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€ ÔÔ€  ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ XÔÔ€#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÌÓÓà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€motion€of€defendants,ÏFranklin€Property€I,€Limited,€and€Bill€Hodges€(ð ðFranklinðð),€forÏsanctions€against€the€plaintiffs,€Ravenwood€Phase€II€HomeownersÏAssociation,€Inc.,€George€A.€Bellville,€and€Susan€L.€PattonÏ(ð ðRavenwoodðð)€and€their€attorneys,€for€failure€to€comply€with€anÏorder€compelling€Ravenwood€to€respond€to€FranklinððsÏinterrogatories€and€requests€for€production€of€documents.€ÏRavenwood€and€their€attorneys€appealed,€raising€two€issues€whichÏpresent€the€following€questions€for€our€review:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 à1.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€ruling€thatÏRavenwood€had€failed€to€comply€with€its€orderÏto€respond€to€Franklinððs€interrogatories€andÏrequests€for€production€of€documents?€ÌÌà àà8 à2.€€Did€the€trial€court€err€in€awardingÏsanctions€against€Ravenwood€and€its€counsel?ÌÌÓÓÌWe€affirm.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àà àRavenwood€originally€filed€suit€against€Franklin€forÏdamages€and€other€relief,€based€upon€an€alleged€drainage€nuisanceÏthat€existed€on€the€Associationððs€property.× ƒ) ××  ×€€On€August€14,€1995,ÏFranklin€served€its€interrogatories€and€requests€for€production€ofÏdocuments€on€Ravenwood.€€On€September€25,€1995,€having€received€noÏresponse,€Franklin€filed€a€motion€to€compel€Ravenwood€to€respondÏto€their€discovery€requests.€€On€October€9,€1995,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€requiring€Ravenwood€to€respond€to€FranklinððsÏdiscovery€requests€within€ten€days.€€However,€Ravenwood€made€noÏeffort€to€respond€within€the€ten„day€period.€€In€fact,€it€did€notÏfile€its€answers€to€the€interrogatories€until€April€1,€1996,Ïalmost€six€months€after€the€entry€of€the€trial€courtððs€order.ÌÌà àà àAlthough€Ravenwood€finally€submitted€answers€to€most€ofÏthe€interrogatories,€they€objected€to€most€of€Franklinððs€requestsÍfor€document€production€and€furnished€no€documents.€€In€the€monthsÏthat€followed,€counsel€for€Franklin€attempted€to€arrange€forÏdiscovery€of€the€requested€documents.€€In€particular,€counselÏsought€to€review€various€corporate€records€pertaining€toÏRavenwood.€€After€Ravenwood€objected€that€such€a€request€wasÏoverbroad€and€unduly€burdensome,€Franklinððs€counsel€narrowed€hisÏrequest€on€two€occasions,€and€he€was€eventually€allowed€to€inspectÏcertain€documents€in€Ravenwoodððs€possession.€€However,€heÏtestified€that€Ravenwood€did€not€produce€the€file€cabinet€ofÏdocuments€to€which€their€attorney€had€previously€referred,€butÏinstead€provided€only€two€letters€and€a€copy€of€the€complaint€inÏthis€case.€€On€September€9,€1996,€Franklin€filed€a€motion€forÏsanctions€against€Ravenwood,€requesting€that€Ravenwood€be€orderedÏto€pay€the€reasonable€expenses€incurred€by€Franklin€ð ðin€obtainingÏthe€requested€documents€and€obtaining€this€Order.ððÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Ravenwood€had€failed€toÏcomply€with€its€order€of€October€9,€1995.€€Consequently,€itÏimposed€sanctions,€jointly€and€severally,€against€the€appellantsÏand€their€attorney,€in€the€amount€of€$1,976.70.€€After€the€trialÏcourt€denied€Ravenwoodððs€motion€for€a€new€trial,€this€appealÏfollowed.ÌÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àRule€37.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏpermits€a€trial€court€to€impose€various€sanctions€in€response€to€aÏpartyððs€failure€to€comply€with€an€order€to€provide€or€permitÏdiscovery.€€It€also€provides€that€in€lieu€of,€or€in€addition€to,Ïsuch€specified€sanctions,€ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àthe€court€shall€require€the€party€failing€toÏobey€the€order€or€the€attorney€advising€theÏparty€or€both€to€pay€the€reasonable€expenses,Ïincluding€attorneyððs€fees,€caused€by€theÏfailure,€unless€the€court€finds€that€theÏfailure€was€substantially€justified€or€thatÏother€circumstances€make€an€award€of€expensesÏunjust.ÌÌÓÓÌRule€37.02,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.ÌÌà àà àDeterminations€regarding€discovery€matters€lie€withinÏthe€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòò òPrice€v.€MercuryÏSupply€Co.óóó ó,€682€S.W.2d€924,€935€(Tenn.App.€1984).€€By€the€sameÏtoken,€a€trial€court€is€vested€with€ð ðbroad€discretion€to€fashionÏsanctions€for€discovery€abuses....ðð€€ò òòòPettus€v.€Hurstó óóó,€882€S.W.2dÍ783,€787€(Tenn.App.€1993).€€As€a€result,€a€trial€courtððs€decisionÏregarding€the€imposition€of€sanctions€will€not€be€disturbed€onÏappeal,€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€ò òòòLyle€v.ÏExxon€Corp.óóó ó,€746€S.W.2d€694,€699€(Tenn.€1988);€ò òòòBrooks€v.€UnitedÏUniform€Co.óóó ó,€682€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1984);€ò òòòHolt€v.€Websteró óóó,€638ÏS.W.2d€391,€394€(Tenn.App.€1982).ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€are€of€the€opinion€thatÏthe€trial€court€correctly€found€that€Ravenwood€had€violated€itsÏorder€of€October€9,€1995,€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuseÏits€discretion€in€imposing€sanctions€for€such€noncompliance.ÌÌà àà àThe€simple€fact€of€the€matter€is€that€Ravenwood€andÏtheir€counsel€did€not€timely€respond€to€the€defendantsðð€discoveryÏrequests,€nor€to€the€trial€courtððs€order€compelling€discovery.€ÏRavenwood€chose€to€ignore€the€trial€courtððs€mandate€that€it€fullyÏcomply€with€Franklinððs€discovery€requests€within€ten€days,€whenÏthey€failed€to€serve€their€answers€to€interrogatories€until€almostÏòòsix€monthsóó€after€the€entry€of€the€order.€€We€fail€to€understandÏhow€Ravenwood€can€argue€in€good€faith€that€the€trial€court€erredÍin€finding€them€in€violation€of€the€discovery€order€of€October€9,Ï1995.€€Ravenwoodððs€claim€that€it€objected€to€the€requests€forÏproduction€of€its€corporate€records€is€not€persuasive.€€It€did€notÏmake€such€an€objection€at€the€appropriate€time,€i.e.,€during€theÏ30„day€period€following€its€receipt€of€the€request.€€òòSee€óóRuleÏ34.02,€Tenn.R.Civ.P.€€Instead,€Ravenwoodððs€objections€came€wellÏafter€the€trial€court€had€been€forced€to€order€the€plaintiffsððÏcompliance€with€Franklinððs€discovery€requests.€€Thus,€we€findÏRavenwoodððs€first€issue€to€be€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€its€second€issue,€Ravenwood€argues€that€even€if€theÏtrial€court€correctly€found€that€they€had€not€complied€with€theÏcourtððs€discovery€order,€the€court€erred€in€imposing€sanctionsÏagainst€Ravenwood€and€their€counsel.€€We€disagree.€€Rule€37.02€ofÏthe€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€clearly€confers€such€authority€on€theÏtrial€court€where€a€party€ð ðfails€to€obey€an€order€to€provide€orÏpermit€discovery.ðð€€òòId.óó€€The€situation€in€this€case€falls€squarelyÏwithin€that€provision.ÌÌà àà àRavenwoodððs€assertion€that€Franklinððs€counsel€engaged€inÏa€ð ðfishing€expeditionðð,€and€that€he€was€already€in€possession€ofÏthe€requested€documents,€misses€the€point;€even€if€theseÍcontentions€were€true,€they€would€provide€no€justification€forÏRavenwoodððs€disregard€of€the€rules€of€discovery€and€the€order€ofÏthe€trial€court.€€The€record€contains€no€indication€thatÏFranklinððs€attorney€made€the€requests€for€any€improper€purpose,€orÏthat€he€already€possessed€or€had€inspected€all€of€theÏdocumentation€that€he€deemed€significant€to€the€preparation€of€hisÏcase.€€Furthermore,€it€is€not€an€attorneyððs€place€to€dictate€hisÏor€her€adversaryððs€discovery€strategy,€or€to€decide€for€his€or€herÏadversary€what€is€or€is€not€important€evidence.€€Thus,€RavenwoodððsÏcontention€that€Franklin€should€have€elected€to€requestÏadmissions„„rather€than€the€production€of€documents„„is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€Ravenwood€complains€that€the€majority€of€theÏexpenses€awarded€as€sanctions€to€Franklin€were€occasioned€only€byÏFranklinððs€pursuit€of€those€sanctions.€€This€argument€is€alsoÏmeritless.€€Once€again,€Rule€37.02€expressly€permits€an€award€ofÏreasonable€expenses€and€attorneyððs€fees€caused€by€a€partyððsÏfailure€to€comply€with€a€discovery€order.€€Rule€37.02,ÏTenn.R.Civ.P.€€Since€the€expenses€for€which€reimbursement€wasÏsought€would€not€have€been€incurred€had€Ravenwood€simply€compliedÏwith€Franklinððs€discovery€requests€and€the€trial€courtððsÍsubsequent€order,€Ravenwood€and€their€attorneys€have€no€one€toÏblame€but€themselves.ÌÌà àà àWe€therefore€hold€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÏdetermined€that€Ravenwood€violated€its€order€of€October€9,€1995.ÏLikewise,€it€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€imposing€sanctionsÏagainst€Ravenwood€and€their€attorneys,€pursuant€to€Rule€37.02€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€theÏappellants€and€their€surety.ÌÌà àà àThe€appellees€argue€that€this€appeal€is€frivolous.€€WeÏagree.€€We€therefore€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€theÏdetermination€of€damages€in€accordance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€27„1„122,€asÏwell€as€the€enforcement€of€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€and€theÏcollection€of€costs€assessed€there,€all€pursuant€to€applicableÏlaw.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________ÌHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.