RICHARD RANSOM v. BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEMS ET AL (2026)

Plaintiff appeals a judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs lawsuit for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order compelling discovery. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about August 8, 2022, Plaintiff, Richard Ransom, was admitted to the Baton Rouge General Medical Center (“BRG”) psychiatric ward for treatment related to a schizophrenia diagnosis. Sometime thereafter, Ransom got into an altercation with hospital security guards and sustained serious injuries requiring surgical intervention. Ransom filed a petition for damages against BRG for his resultant injuries on September 29, 2023. BRG filed an answer to Ransom's petition on November 13, 2023, wherein it denied any liability for Ransom's injuries.

BRG issued interrogatories and a request for production of documents to Ransom on or about November 14, 2023. BRG scheduled a Rule 10.1 discovery conference for March 6, 2024, due to Ransom's failure to respond to the discovery requests as of February 29, 2024. Counsel for BRG sent correspondence to counsel for Ransom on the afternoon of March 6, 2024, confirming that the parties agreed to extend the deadline to respond to discovery to April 6, 2024.

On July 1, 2024, BRG filed a motion to compel answers to its interrogatories and request for production of documents. Therein, BRG alleged that despite the Rule 10.1 conference, BRG did not receive responses to its discovery requests as of the date of filing the motion to compel. Ransom did not oppose the motion. At the hearing on BRG's motion to compel on August 7, 2024, the district court granted the motion to compel from the bench. In addition, the district court ordered Ransom to respond to BRG's discovery within 15 days from the date of judgment—August 30, 2024. Notice of the district court's judgment on BRG's motion to compel was mailed to the parties on September 9, 2024.

On February 21, 2025, BRG filed a “Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Judgment, Alternatively, Motion for Sanctions.” BRG alleged that, notwithstanding the district court's August 30, 2024 ruling on BRG's motion to compel, Ransom still had not responded to its discovery requests issued in November 2023. Citing La. C.C.P. art. 1471, BRG urged the district court to dismiss Ransom's petition for damages, or alternatively, to impose “sanctions as the Court deems appropriate.”

Ransom filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 17, 2025. Therein, counsel for Ransom explained that Ransom has been unable to comply with ongoing discovery obligations due to “a well-documented and debilitating mental incapacity.” Counsel also stated that he “diligently attempted to obtain information to respond to [BRG's] discovery without success”; that Ransom “refused to communicate with counsel”; and that he “has discussed the need for the appointment of a curator with [Ransom's] family and will [pursue the same] in due course.” Accordingly, counsel argued that dismissal is inappropriate because noncompliance was not due to willful disobedience or bad faith. In addition, counsel for Ransom requested an extension of time to have a curator appointed pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 4541, et seq.

The district court held a hearing on BRG's motion to dismiss on May 19, 2025. At the hearing, BRG informed the court that it still had not received discovery responses from Ransom. In response, counsel for Ransom explained the difficulties he has encountered when attempting to communicate with his client and also stated that he has had his own health issues that prevented him from being able to try to meet with Ransom or Ransom's family members in order to get a curator appointed. The district court questioned Ransom's attorney as to why he waited two years to bring up the necessity of a curator, to which he responded, “They kept leading me to believe that within a few months he would be out[,] ․ but they won't turn him loose.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court granted the motion and dismissed Ransom's case without prejudice. The district court stated:

[T]hese are not new conditions that have just popped up over time where [Ransom's] been lost in the system․ [T]hese cases end up just getting extended and extended and extended and it's like for what. So for those reasons, for failure to comply with the Court's original ruling back in August, ․ I'm going to grant the motion to dismiss.[1]

A written judgment was signed on June 11, 2025, and mailed on June 23, 2025. Ransom appealed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

It is undisputed that Ransom failed to respond to BRG's discovery requests and therefore failed to comply with the district court's August 30, 2024 order compelling discovery responses. Refusal to comply with court-ordered discovery is a serious matter, and trial judges must have severe sanctions available to deter litigants from flouting discovery orders. Horton v. McCary, 63 5 So.2d 199, 203 (La. 1994). Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1471(A), if a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including any of the following:

(1) An order that the matters regarding which the order was made or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order.

(2) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing designated matters in evidence.

(3) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party upon presentation of proof as required by Article 1702.

(4) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.

(5) Where a party has failed to comply with an order under Article 1464, requiring him to produce another for examination, such orders as are listed in Subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this Paragraph, unless the party failing to comply shows that he is unable to produce such person for examination.

The district court has wide discretion in imposing sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders, and its ruling should not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Lathan Company v. Department of Education, Recovery School District, 2023-0309 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/21/24), 384 So.3d 399, 412 (citing Hutchinson v. Westport Ins. Corp., 2004-1592 (La. 11/8/04), 886 So.2d 438, 440 (per curiam)).

Nevertheless, dismissal is a “draconian” penalty that should be applied only in extreme circumstances. Hutchinson, 886 So.2d at 440. Because the sanction of dismissal involves property rights, that sanction is generally reserved for the most culpable conduct. Horton, 635 So.2d at 203. In Horton, 635 So.2d at 203, the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted four factors used by the federal courts to determine whether the “drastic action of dismissal” is appropriate for failure to comply with a discovery order. Those factors are: (1) whether the violation was willful or resulted from inability to comply; (2) whether less drastic sanctions would be effective; (3) whether the violations prejudiced the opposing party's trial preparation; and (4) whether the client participated in the violation or simply misunderstood a court order, or innocently hired a derelict attorney. Hutchinson, 8 86 So.2d at 440 (citing Horton, 63 5 So.2d at 203). Further, dismissal is justified only if the record contains sufficient evidence of the party's willful disobedience, bad faith, or fault. TruFund Financial Services, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge, 2024-0993 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/8/25), 417 So.3d 703, 710, writ denied, 2025-00828 (La. 11/5/25), 420 So.3d 30.

It is undisputed that Ransom suffers from some level of mental incapacity. Therefore, we cannot conclude from the record before us that Ransom's failure to comply with the district court's discovery order was due to his “willful disobedience, bad faith, or fault.” We also cannot conclude whether the “drastic action of dismissal” was appropriate. The parties did not submit any evidence to the district court, and there is no sworn testimony in the record with which this court may assess any of the Horton factors. See Burkenstock v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Central Claims, LLC, 2025-0138 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/16/26), 2026 WL 160618, *10 (unpublished) (finding dismissal inappropriate); see also In re Wiley, 2003-793 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/23/03), 862 So.2d 1243, 1248 (reversing dismissal and remanding). Counsel's argument, which is all that was before the district court, is not evidence. Burkenstock, 2026 WL 160618 at *10; In re Wiley, 862 So.2d at 1248. Therefore, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Ransom's petition for damages with prejudice. See Burkenstock, 2026 WL 160618 at *10.

DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, the district court's June 11, 2025 judgment dismissing the petition for damages filed by Plaintiff, Richard Ransom, is reversed. All costs of these proceedings are assessed to Defendant, Baton Rouge General Medical Center a/k/a General Health System.

REVERSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The court also noted that Ransom has pending criminal charges, and on the date of the hearing, Ransom was set to appear in Judge Hines's courtroom, also at the 19th JDC, for a sanity review on those charges.

EDWARDS, J.