Carol Audrey Jones, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-0477

Carol Audrey Jones,
Appellant,

Sadie Rae Jones,
Plaintiff,

Clark Edward Jones,
Plaintiff,

vs.

State Farm Insurance Company Fire Claims,
Respondent.

Filed December 5, 2022
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-CV-21-839

Carol Audrey Jones, Clearwater, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Scott G. Williams, HAWS -KM, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Cochran,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s dismissal under Minn. R. Civ. P.
37.02(b)(3) of their claims relating to respondent insurer’s denial of coverage for water
2
damage to their property. Appellants also challenge the denial of their request for a
continuance of trial. We affirm.
FACTS
In December 2020, appellants Carol Audrey Jones, Sadie Rae Jones, and Clark
Edward Jones (the Joneses) sued in conciliation court seeking to recover under an insurance
policy issued by respondent State Farm Insurance Company Fire Claims (State Farm) for
water damage to their rental home. The Joneses claimed that the water pipes broke, causing
flooding on their property. State Farm conducted a site inspection and investigation and
determined that the damage resulted from vandalism and malicious mischief. State Farm
conveyed that the damages resulting from this loss were not covered by the insurance
policy because the home had been vacant for more than 30 days. State Farm therefore
denied the cla im. In February 2021, the conciliation court dismissed the Joneses’ claim
with prejudice, determining that the “loss was not covered under the terms of the insurance
contract.” The Joneses filed a demand for removal to the district court for trial de novo.
On April 27, 2021, State Farm served interrogatories and requests for production of
documents upon the Joneses. State Farm requested responses within 30 days. See Minn.
R. Civ. P. 33.01(b), 34.02(c)(1) (providing that under the rules of civil procedure, a party
generally must respond to discovery requests within 30 days ). On June 11, 2021, State
Farm sent a letter to the Joneses stating that it had not received responses to its discovery
requests and that the responses were “overdue.” State Farm aske d the Joneses to respond
to discovery and conveyed that it would “raise the issue with the Court” if responses were
not timely received. State Farm sent a second letter on June 21, 2021, noting that the
3
responses were “overdue” and ask ing the Joneses to send their responses at their earliest
convenience. State Farm conveyed it would bring a motion to compel if it did not receive
a response. State Farm sent a third letter to the Joneses on July 16, 2021, stating that it had
still not received the responses. State Farm stated that if it did not receive the responses
by July 20, 2021, it would move to compel. The Joneses provided partial responses in
August 2021. On August 9, 2021, State Farm sent a letter to the Joneses asking for full
compliance with the outstanding discovery requests. State Farm stated that it had a motion
to compel scheduled with the district court but noted that it would withdraw the motion if
it received responses by August 20, 2021.
State Farm later filed a notice of motion and motion to compel discovery. State
Farm sought “more complete responses” to its discovery requests, “or risk dismissal with
prejudice.” The district court granted the motion and ordered that the Joneses “shall
provide more complete responses to State Farm’s Interrogatories and Requests for
Production within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.” The September 10, 2021
order also provided that if the Joneses ignored the order, “State Farm shall advise the Court
and this matter is subject to immediate dismissal with prejudice.”
In October 2021, State Farm sent a letter to the district court revealing that it had
not received discovery responses and requesting that the matter be dismissed with
prejudice. State Farm sought dismissal under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 37.02 for
the Joneses’ failure to comply with the district court’s order and the Minnesota Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Joneses did not respond. A few days before the motion hearing,
Carol Jones acknowledged that the Jo neses failed to fully comply with discovery and
4
requested a continuance of the motion hearing. The district court denied the continuance
request. The district court then granted State Farm’s motion and dismissed the action with
prejudice.
The Joneses appeal.
DECISION
I. Dismissal Under Rule 37.02
Rule 37.02 permits a district court to impose sanctions —including dismissal of an
action—against a party that fails to comply with a discovery order. Minn. R. Civ. P.
37.02(b)(3). The district court ’s discovery -related orders will not be reversed absent an
abuse of discretion. Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, 454 N.W.2d 916,
921 (Minn. 1990).
[Appellate courts] have examined the following factors in
determining whether a district court has abused its discretion
in imposing discovery sanctions: (1) if the [district] court set a
date certain by which compliance was required, (2) if the
[district] court gave a warning of potential sanctions for non-
compliance, (3) if the failure to cooperate with discovery was
an isolated event or part of a pattern, (4) if the failure to comply
was willful or without justification, and (5) if the moving party
has demonstrated prejudice.
Frontier Ins. Co. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 788 N.W.2d 917, 923 (Minn. App. 2010),
rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2010). We determine that each factor is satisfied here.
First, the district court set a date certain by which compliance was required. State
Farm moved to compel on August 17, 2021. The district court granted the motion on
September 10, 2021. The district cour t specifically ordered the Joneses to “provide more
complete responses to State Farm’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production within
5
thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.” The district court set a date certain by which the
Joneses had to comply with the outstanding discovery request s.
Second, the district court warned the Joneses of the potential sanctions for
noncompliance. “The existence of a clear warning by the trial court that dismissal or a
similar sanction would automatically result if t he party did not comply with a discovery
deadline [is] a significant factor in determining on appeal whether such a sanction was
appropriate.” Sudheimer v. Sudheimer , 372 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Minn. App. 1985). T he
district court provided that if the Joneses disregarded the order, “State Farm shall advise
the Court and this matter is subject to immediate dismissal with prejudice.” The Joneses
were on notice that dismissal was a potential sanction for noncomplianc e.
Third, the failure to cooperate with discovery was not an isolated event. State Farm
served its interrogatories and requests for production of documents on April 27, 2021. The
Joneses did not respond to discovery. State Farm sent three more letters on June 11, 2021,
June 21, 2021, and July 16, 2021, requesting discovery and stating that it would move to
compel if it did not receive responses. The Joneses did not provide complete responses to
these requests. The Joneses also violated the district cou rt’s September 10, 2021 order.
The district court found that the Joneses’ “noncompliance was not an isolated event, but
instead has been part of a pattern during the proceedings.” The record reflect s that the
Joneses engaged in a pattern of failing to fully comply with State Farm’s discovery requests
and with the district court’s order requiring compliance.
Fourth, the failure to comply with discovery was unjustified. The Joneses did not
explain why they failed to fully comply with discovery. Instead , they only acknowledged
6
that they failed to engage in discovery. Carol Jones sent a letter to the district court in
November 2021 stating, “I know at this time I have not responded to your order on June
21, 2021 to provide requested information to the Defendant State Farm and their Attorneys
. . . . Also, [I] have not provided required evidence/information to the Courts regarding
this case. ” The district court determined that the Joneses “failed to comply with the
discovery requests” and that this failure to comply “was not justified.”
Lastly, State Farm has shown that it was prejudiced by the Joneses’ failure to
participate in discovery. State Farm’s request for discovery had “been due for six months,”
which constituted more than enough time to provide responses or request a continuance.
We have recognized “that the inability of [a responding party] to mount an effective
defense due to [the appellant’s] failure to comply with discovery and court orders is
sufficient prejudice to warrant sanctions.” Frontier Ins. Co., 788 N.W.2d at 925. Here,
the record supports a finding that State Farm suffered prejudice because of its inability to
adequately prepare a defense based on the Joneses’ persistent failure to engage in
discovery. See Gebhard v. Niedzwiecki , 122 N.W.2d 110, 114- 15 (Minn. 1963) (stating
that discovery seeks to prevent unjust surprise by ascertaining all relevant facts before
trial).
7
In sum, each of the five factors supports dismissal. We thus conclude that , on this
record, dismissal with prejudice under rule 37.02 was within the district court’s discretion.1
Affirmed.

1 The Joneses also challenge the denial of their request for a trial continuance. Because we
affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action, we deem this issue moot. See Dean v.
City of Winona , 868 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2015) (concluding that an issue becomes moot
when “an award of effective relief is no longer possible”). We discern no abuse of
discretion in denial of the request for a continuance.